REESE   LIBRARY 

OF  Tin-: 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 


A  POLITICAL  HISTORY 
OF  SLAVERY 

Being  an  Account  of  the  Slavery  Controversy  from  the 

Earliest  Agitations  in  the  Eighteenth  Century  to  the 

Close  of  the  Reconstruction  Period  in  America 

BY 
WILLIAM  HENRY  SMITH 

Author  of  "The  St.   Clair  Papers," 
"  Charles  Hammond,"  etc. 

WITH  AN  INTRODUCTION  BY 

WHITELAW   REID 


In  Two  Volumes 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 
NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON 
"Knickerbocker  press 
1903 


COPYRIGHT,  1903 

BY 

DELAVAN   SMITH 


Published,  March,  1903 


Ube  Itnicfeerbocfcer  press,  Hew  H?orft 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

PAGE 

ANTI-SLAVERY  AGITATION  THROUGH  THE  PRESS  AND  RE 
LIGIOUS  ORGANIZATIONS — FEELING  IN  BORDER  STATES — 
EARLY  SLAVE  CASES  i 


CHAPTER  II 
INTOLERANCE  AND  REACTION  AFTER  1830     . 

CHAPTER  III 


33 


THE  SLAVERS  Amistad,  Enterprise,    Creole — HOUSE  CENSURES 

OF  ADAMS  AND  GIDDINGS — ANNEXATION  OF  TEXAS        .     53 

CHAPTER  IV 
THE   WILMOT    PROVISO — CLAY,   CALHOUN,  WEBSTER   IN    THE 


SENATE — THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1850 


82 


CHAPTER  V 

INDUSTRIAL  PROGRESS  AND  THE  TARIFF — FUGITIVE  SLAVES 
— FILIBUSTERING  IN  CUBA — THE  NEW  DEMOCRACY  AND 
DOUGLAS  ......... 

CHAPTER  VI 


130 


THE    KANSAS-NEBRASKA    BILL — SQUATTER     SOVEREIGNTY— 

THE  FIGHT  FOR  KANSAS  .   162 


iv  Contents 

CHAPTER  VII 

PAGE 

ATTITUDE  OF  THE  COURTS 194 

CHAPTER  VIII 

CONVENTIONS    OF    1856 — "BLEEDING    KANSAS" — ELECTION 

OF  BUCHANAN  ....  ...   214 

CHAPTER  IX 

THE    DRED    SCOTT    DECISION — THE    ADMINISTRATION    AND 

KANSAS — JOHN  BROWN'S  RAID 242 

CHAPTER  X 
THE  CONVENTIONS  OF  1860 — THE  ELECTION  OF  LINCOLN      .   268 

CHAPTER  XI 

SECESSION     AND     REBELLION — LAST    ATTEMPTS     AT     COM 
PROMISE — THE  CONFEDERATE  SOUTH        ....  304 


INTRODUCTION 

THIS  work  differs  from  most  histories  treating  of  the  same 
period  in  confining  its  narration  largely  to  a  specific 
purpose.  The  author  undertakes  to  cover  the  whole 
time  from  the  first  signs  in  America  of  active  hostility  to  slavery 
down  to  the  reconstruction  of  the  United  States  Constitution 
as  an  anti-slavery  instrument.  But  he  does  not  undertake 
an  adequate  account  of  the  origin  and  spirit  of  slavery  in  this 
country,  nor  of  the  growth  of  the  anti-slavery  agitation  at  the 
North,  nor  of  Secession,  nor  of  the  Civil  War  and  what  came 
after.  He  traverses  this  period  from  first  to  last  with  the  one 
primary  purpose  of  telling  the  Political  History  of  Slavery. 

Incidentally  there  is  much  reference  to  all  the  other  topics, 
but  only  as  they  contribute  to  the  development  of  this  politi 
cal  story.  To  read  the  work  for  the  full  record  of  either 
Abolition  propagandism  or  Secession,  or  for  a  consecutive  and 
detailed  narrative  of  the  Civil  War,  would  be  disappointing. 
The  author  did  not  set  himself  to  any  of  these  tasks,  and  they 
had  already  been  essayed,  at  any  rate,  in  many  volumes  and 
by  all  sorts  and  conditions  of  writers.  What  he  did  attempt 
is  merely  to  use  such  facts  in  all  these  fields  as  are  essential  to 
the  political  history  he  was  presenting. 

The  work  begins  with  the  first  active  opposition  to  slavery, 
which  the  author  attributes  to  John  Woolman,  the  New  Jer 
sey  Quaker,  writing  in  1732;  and  after  the  Revolution  to 
Charles  Osborne,  another  Quaker,  who  started  the  Tennes 
see  Manumission  Society,  and  in  1817  resumed  in  Ohio  the 


vi  Introduction 

issue  of  the  first  American  anti-slavery  newspaper,  a  journal 
that  had  already  been  started  within  the  range  of  his  Tennessee 
activities.  It  ends  in  the  middle  of  Grant's  first  Administra 
tion,  with  the  adoption  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  to  the 
Constitution. 

It  had  its  origin,  no  doubt,  in  the  request  of  the  nineteenth 
President  of  the  United  States  that  the  author  should  act  as 
his  literary  executor,  and  with  the  full  use  of  his  private 
papers  prepare  an  account  of  his  life  and  times.  The  early 
part  of  General  Hayes's  career  brought  him  into  a  centre  of 
the  anti-slavery  movements  which  preceded  the  organization 
of  the  Republican  party,  made  him  an  associate  of  Salmon  P. 
Chase  in  fugitive-slave  cases,  and  compelled  his  biographer  to 
study  the  development  of  public  purpose  as  it  took  form  in  the 
tangible  efforts  of  practical  men  to  secure  political  agencies 
by  which  an  orderly,  self-governing  people  could  correct  their 
government.  The  studies  thus  undertaken  naturally  outgrew 
the  original  purpose  of  an  introduction  to  the  work  of  General 
Hayes's  biographer  and  editor,  and  these  two  volumes  are  the 
result. 

The  distinguishing  feature  in  the  view  here  presented  of  the 
developments  which  ended  in  outlawing  slavery  throughout 
the  continent  will  no  doubt  be  found  in  the  relatively  smaller 
importance  attached  by  the  author  to  sentimental  agitations 
and  agitators,  and  in  the  greater  honor  awarded  to  those  who 
instead  of  brilliantly  saying  things  that  alienated  support 
soberly  did  things  that  compelled  it.  The  real  anti-slavery 
leadership  is  thus  credited  to  the  men  who  recognized  parties 
as  the  chief  means  of  doing  things  in  a  free  government ; — who 
were  so  skilful,  for  example,  in  constraining  parties  to  courses 
they  had  not  intended,  as  to  cause  large  numbers  of  indifferent 
Democrats  to  unite  with  a  smaller  number  of  anti-slavery 
Whigs  in  making  the  formerly  Whig  State  of  Ohio  send  Sal 
mon  P.  Chase,  a  Free  Soil  Democrat,  to  the  United  States 
Senate ;  who  amazed  the  House  of  Representatives  by  electing 
Nathaniel  P.  Banks  of  Massachusetts,  and  again  William  Pen- 


Introduction  vii 

nington  of  New  Jersey,  to  the  Speakership;  who  helped  put 
William  H.  Seward,  Charles  Sumner  and  John  P.  Hale  in  the 
Senate,  Joshua  R.  Giddings  and  Owen  Lovejoy  in  the  House; 
who  looked  to  Horace  Greeley,  the  Republican  leader  and 
party  editor,  rather  than  to  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  the  ex 
ponent  of  the  Abolitionists,  for  guidance  as  well  as  inspiration, 
and  made  The  Tribune  the  anti-slavery  political  text-book  for 
the  country; — the  practical  people,  in  short,  who  sought  to 
accomplish  political  results  by  political  means,  and  from  the 
most  hopeless  beginnings  thus  gained  political  power  at  every 
turn  until  anti-slavery  officials  had  become  a  distinct  force  to 
be  recognized,  trusted  and  even  followed,  long  before  the  pre 
liminary  organization  of  the  Republican  party  was  possible. 

Less  notice,  on  the  other  hand,  is  taken  in  these  pages  of 
the  work  by  the  school  which  by  dint  of  elegant  vituperation 
on  their  own  part  and  eloquent  eulogy  on  the  part  of  their 
followers  and  descendants  has  sometimes  seemed  to  fill  the 
Eastern  and  European  eye  as  comprising  the  foremost  figures 
in  the  great  struggle.  Neither  is  the  scant  notice  they  receive 
always  commendatory.  The  author  does  not  hesitate  to  cen 
sure  the  violence  of  Stephen  S.  Foster  in  denouncing  the 
majority  of  the  Executive  Department,  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
and  of  the  diplomatic  representatives  of  the  country  as  negro 
thieves.  So,  too,  he  has  no  praise  for  such  outbursts  as  Wen 
dell  Phillips's  imprecation  in  Faneuil  Hall,  "My  curse  be  upon 
the  Constitution  of  these  United  States,"  or  for  the  declara 
tion  of  war  by  Mr.  Garrison  on  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  as  a  covenant  with  death  and  an  agreement  with  hell, 
and  on  the  Christian  churches  as  largely  its  allies.  To  unre 
strained  utterances  like  these  he  traces  directly  the  influence 
which  so  largely  turned  the  orthodox  churches  at  the  South 
and  even  at  the  North  against  the  anti-slavery  movement, 
with  which  in  the  beginning  so  many  of  them  had  been  in 
full  sympathy. 

He  is  careful  to  correct  the  notion,  set  forth  in  Mr.  Henry 
Wilson's  History  of  the  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power  in 


viii  Introduction 

America,  that  the  anti-slavery  sentiment  in  Ohio  was  chiefly 
due  to  the  New  England  emigrants.  On  the  contrary  he 
traces  it  in  large  part  to  the  churches  and  to  Southern  influ 
ences;  and,  looking  a  little  farther  West,  notes  as  a  significant 
fact  that  when  the  struggle  was  precipitated  in  Illinois  in 
1823-4  for  a  new  Constitution  that  should  repeal  the  clauses 
conforming  to  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  and  so  permit  slavery, 
the  protest  against  it,  drawn  up  by  Governor  Coles,  was  signed 
by  eighteen  members  of  the  Illinois  Legislature,  of  whom  a 
majority  were  emigrants  from  slave  States.  In  general  he 
evidently  considered  the  West  entitled  to  much  larger  recog 
nition  than  it  had  hitherto  received  for  the  kind  of  work 
against  slavery  which  plainly  secured  results;  and  he  desired 
especially  that  the  tremendous  record  of  the  great  Central 
West,  the  three  States  he  knew  the  best,  Ohio,  Indiana  and 
Illinois,  should  be  put  in  its  proper  relation  to  that  of  other 
regions  which  had  abounded  more  in  historians. 

Another  distinguishing  feature,  then,  of  the  present  work  is 
that  it  is  written  by  an  onlooker  and  participant  from  the 
Middle  West,  whose  impressions  and  recollections  are  neces 
sarily  more  vivid  as  to  the  vast  movement  which  set  that  region 
aflame,  which  put  forward  Lincoln  for  the  Presidency,  and 
which  ultimately  swept  down  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  valleys 
to  the  sea.  A  little  change  from  the  accustomed  proportions  of 
some  of  the  historic  figures  naturally  follows.  The  great  place 
assigned  to  Salmon  P.  Chase  will  surprise  no  well-read  student, 
East  or  West.  But  Brough  and  Morton,  McLean,  Corwin,  Gid- 
dings,  Julian,  Hayes,  Speed,  Dennison  and  Shellabarger, 
Trumbull  and  Grimes  all  rise  larger  than  has  generally  been 
observed  on  the  Eastern  horizon.  The  New  England  Emi 
grant  Aid  Society  is  held  to  have  been  accorded  a  prominence 
in  the  redemption  of  Kansas  its  work  did  not  warrant.  Even 
the  leadership  in  Free  Soil  organization  claimed  by  Mr.  Sum- 
ner  for  the  Worcester  (Mass.)  Convention  of  June  28,  1852, 
is  denied  by  our  author,  who  points  to  the  persuasive  call  for 
the  Ohio  Free  Soil  Convention  of  June  22,  1852,  written  by 


Introduction  ix 

the  master  political  hand  of  Mr.  Chase  early  the  previous 
winter  and  signed  by  more  than  three  thousand  citizens  repre 
senting  all  parties,  and  to  the  fact  that  on  the  call  of  this  body 
the  Buffalo  National  Convention  of  eighteen  States  and  465 
delegates  was  assembled  on  August  Qth. 

But  the  tone  of  these  rectifications  is  absolutely  without 
bitterness  or  controversial  tendency.  The  author  was  so  situ 
ated  as  to  see  the  occurrences  in  their  natural  relation;  he 
knew  the  actors  and  the  authorities,  and  he  recites  the  facts 
with  as  little  emotion  as  he  might  show  in  a  record  of  the 
flood.  He  draws  largely  on  manuscript  authority  for  many 
of  his  quotations,  availing  himself  freely  of  unpublished  letters 
and  papers  from  Hayes,  Chase,  Brough,  Speed,  Morton  and 
others ;  but  he  makes  full  use  also  of  most  of  the  recognized 
Eastern  authorities  who  have  traversed  these  fields. 

In  tracing  the  political  movements  at  the  close  of  the  war 
which  practically  resulted  in  universal  suffrage  North  and 
South,  with  the  carnival  of  "carpet-bag"  corruption  that  fol 
lowed,  and  has  now  ended  by  the  practical  suppression  of  the 
negro  vote  and  retention  of  its  representation  by  the  South, 
the  author  is  careful  to  make  clear  that  unlimited  negro  suf 
frage  was  not  the  first  offer  of  the  side  that  had  triumphed  in 
the  war.  Mr.  Lincoln  himself  had  merely  proposed  to  give 
the  ballot  to  the  blacks  who  could  read,  and  to  the  few  thou 
sands  who  had  served  as  Union  soldiers.  The  Fourteenth 
Amendment  left  it  to  the  Southern  States  to  fix  the  conditions 
of  suffrage.  Not  till  that  had  been  rejected  by  the  advice  of 
Andrew  Johnson,  and  not  till  the  North  despaired  of  any 
other  adequate  guarantees  for  the  enfranchised  blacks,  was 
equality  of  suffrage  exacted.  General  Hayes,  who  was  after 
wards  to  be  the  subject  of  such  vituperation  at  the  South  on 
this  subject,  had  actually  carried  the  Ohio  congressional 
caucus  for  an  educational  qualification.  In  the  end,  however, 
Shellabarger  reverted  to  "manhood  suffrage"  with  Chase, 
Wilson  and  Sumner. 

My  own  recollections  of  the  discussion  in  those  days  furnish 


x  Introduction 

me  with  two  reminiscences  that  illustrate  their  position. 
When  Mr.  Chase,  then  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States,  was 
on  the  tour  of  observation  in  the  South  which  Mr.  Johnson 
asked  him  to  make  in  the  spring  of  1865,  I  had  the  privilege 
of  reading  some  of  the  private  letters  in  which  he  reported  to 
the  President,  and  ventured  to  ask  if  it  would  not  be  wiser  to 
recommend  a  qualified  suffrage  for  this  vast  mass  of  ignorant 
slaves,  just  enfranchised.  "No,"  replied  the  Chief  Justice, 
"they  must  have  unrestricted  suffrage;  there  is  no  other  way 
of  protecting  their  new-found  liberty.  The  ballot  is  their 
only  weapon."  "But  they  don't  know  how  to  use  it." 
"Neither  did  you  know  how  to  swim  till  you  were  thrown  into 
the  water.  Put  the  responsibility  upon  them.  It  will  be  the 
best  way,  sometimes  the  only  way,  of  educating  them."  To  a 
similar  suggestion  in  favor  of  small  property  and  educational 
qualifications,  ventured  a  few  months  later  to  Henry  Winter 
Davis,  this  eloquent  Marylander  instantly  replied,  "That  vio 
lates  my  fundamental  rule  of  politics,"  and  when  urged  to 
explain,  merely  said,  "My  rule  is  to  stand  by  my  friends.  You 
have  n't  a  friend  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  that  owns 
anything,  or  knows  how  to  read  and  write." 

This  Political  History  is  written  with  the  fulness  of  knowl 
edge  that  comes  from  having  seen  many  of  the  events  from 
the  inside  as  they  occurred,  from  a  lifelong  familiarity  with 
and  study  of  the  entire  range  of  the  subjects,  and  from  access 
to  much  unpublished  information,  in  the  papers  of  President 
Hayes  and  Governor  Brough,  in  the  records  of  the  State  office 
held  during  a  critical  part  of  the  period,  and  in  constant  per 
sonal  communication  with  some  of  the  actors.  It  is  a  man 
ifest  effort  to  be  fair  to  all,  but  to  be  fair  first  to  the  public 
men  and  the  great  communities  of  the  Middle  West  who  were 
thought  to  have  been  known  sometimes  at  the  East  less  well 
than  they  deserved.  Few  will  now  complain  that  it  gives 
more  prominence  than  has  heretofore  been  common  to  the 
men  who  distrusted  rhetorical  efforts  without  political  plan  or 
methods,  and  preferred  to  rely  upon  the  orderly  procedure 


Introduction  xi 

and  parliamentary  instincts  of  their  race.  To  another  genera 
tion  the  idolatrous  treatment  of  the  pure  Abolition  school 
which  at  the  East  appeared  to  follow  the  close  of  the  war  will 
seem  little  short  of  amazing.  As  time  goes  on  fuller  justice 
will  be  done,  in  the  history  of  the  movements  by  which  a  free 
people  enlarged  the  bounds  of  freedom,  to  communities  and 
to  leading  men  that  relied  upon  typical  Anglo-Saxon  means 
for  the  correction  of  wrongs  and  the  better  development  of 
Anglo-Saxon  institutions; — to  Horace  Greeley  first  among 
public  educators,  to  Chase  and  Seward,  Stanton  and  Welles, 
first  among  legislators  and  Cabinet  Ministers,  and  finally  to 
the  peer  if  not  the  superior  of  them  all,  and  certainly  the  most 
capable  politician  of  the  list,  Abraham  Lincoln. 

In  essence  it  was  from  beginning  to  end  a  struggle  by  free 
labor  at  the  North  to  free  labor  at  the  South.  This  story  of 
the  political  methods  by  which  that  end  was  attained  appears 
at  an  hour  when  the  region  that  was  willing  to  spend  a  million 
lives  and  a  billion  dollars  to  make  labor  free  at  the  South  may 
need  to  consider  whether  its  politicians  of  to-day  have  the 
same  principles  for  home  consumption  their  fathers  had  for 
export; — what  they  are  ready  to  do,  if  anything,  to  keep  labor 
free  now  at  the  North. 

The  Political  History  of  Slavery  was  left  by  its  author  sub 
stantially  finished  when  he  died,  and  the  Life  of  President 
Hayes,  which  was  to  follow  it,  and  was  to  develop  the  efforts 
in  the  Southern  policy  of  that  Administration  to  correct  the 
mistakes  of  the  early  Reconstruction  period,  was  brought  down 
to  the  close  of  the  great  hard-money  campaign,  which  made 
Governor  Hayes  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency  and  deter 
mined  the  sound  financial  policy  of  the  Middle  West.  Mr. 
Smith's  surviving  son,  Delavan  Smith,  undertook  to  prepare 
the  first  work  for  the  press.  He  found  it  only  necessary  to 
detach  a  few  passages  which  dealt  more  with  Governor  Hayes 
personally  than  with  the  general  narrative.  The  pages  thus 
excised  have  been  turned  over  to  Mr.  Smith's  son-in-law,  Mr. 
Charles  R.  Williams,  editor  of  The  Indianapolis  News,  who 


xii  Introduction 

now  has  the  Life  of  Hayes  in  active  preparation,  embodying 
Mr.  Smith's  work  as  far  as  it  was  carried,  and  continuing  it  on 
the  basis  of  the  material  he  had  collected. 


Mr.  William  Henry  Smith  was  born  in  Columbia  County, 
New  York,  of  parents  from  Litchfield  County,  Connecticut, 
on  December  i,  1833;  he  was  taken  by  his  parents  to  Union 
County,  Ohio,  in  1835;  by  1854  he  had  been  a  school-teacher 
and  tutor  in  college  for  some  years,  and  had  begun  work  as  the 
editor  of  a  literary  political  journal  at  Cincinnati ;  later  he  be 
came  a  correspondent  for  the  Cincinnati  Commercial;  in  1858 
he  joined  the  Cincinnati  Gazette ',  and  with  the  exception  of 
five  years  of  office-holding,  continued  either  in  the  editorship 
of  a  newspaper  or  the  General  Managership  of  the  Associated 
Press  until  he  retired  in  1893.  The  remaining  years  of  his  life 
were  given  to  literary  work,  and  he  died  in  1896. 

Such  in  the  briefest  outline  are  the  essential  facts  concerning 
a  man  who  held  a  place  in  the  Ohio  State  Government  at  a 
critical  period,  sustained  confidential  relations  with  great 
actors  in  the  anti-slavery  drama,  was  actively  concerned  in  the 
efforts  of  the  young  Free  Soilers  to  develop  the  Republican 
party  and  support  the  war  for  the  Union,  occupied  various 
influential  editorial  positions,  and  was  for  twenty-two  years 
the  most  important  personage  in  the  United  States  in  the 
organization  and  management  of  the  Associated  Press,  em 
bracing  most  of  the  considerable  newspapers  of  the  continent. 

Mr.  Smith's  earliest  literary  work  in  Cincinnati  as  editor  of 
The  Type  of  the  Times  brought  him  into  close  relation  with  the 
young  literary  men  and  ardent  Free  Soil  politicians  of  the 
party.  He  was  soon  welcomed  as  a  member  of  the  Literary 
Club  which  included  General  Rutherford  B.  Hayes,  afterwards 
President  of  the  United  States,  Governor  Edward  F.  Noyes, 
afterwards  United  States  Minister  to  France,  General  Wm.  H. 
Lytle,  Robert  H.  Stevenson,  T.  Buchanan  Read,  James  Mur- 
dock,  Colonel  Delavan  Mussey  and  others.  When  he  joined 


Introduction  xiii 

the  staff  of  what  was  then  a  leading  Republican  paper  of  the 
West,  the  Cincinnati  Gazette,  he  developed  simultaneously  a 
marked  capacity  for  excellent  newspaper  work  and  for  adroit 
and  far-seeing  political  management. 

The  great  campaign  against  Clement  L.  Vallandigham,  pre 
cipitated  by  his  nomination  for  the  Governorship  of  Ohio  while 
he  was  absent  in  the  South  exiled  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  stirred  the 
State  to  its  depths.  Mr.  Smith  threw  himself  heart  and  soul 
into  the  work  for  the  opposing  candidate,  John  Brough,  one  of 
the  greatest  of  the  Western  War  Governors,  and  on  Mr. 
Brough's  election  was  immediately  invited  to  become  his 
private  secretary.  After  serving  in  this  capacity  till  the  next 
year,  he  was  elected  Secretary  of  State,  heading  the  Republi 
can  ticket  and  carrying  the  State  by  a  majority  of  fifty-six 
thousand,  till  then  absolutely  unprecedented  except  in  the 
Vallandigham  campaign  itself.  He  was  re-elected  for  another 
term,  but  resigned  shortly  before  its  expiration  in  order  to 
undertake  the  organization  of  a  new  evening  newspaper  in 
Cincinnati,  The  Chronicle.  Throughout  his  service  at  Colum 
bus,  as  well  as  in  the  earlier  days  in  Cincinnati,  he  was  equally 
active  and  useful  in  the  organization,  handling  and  discharge 
of  the  State  troops,  a  work  in  which  he  took  an  intense  and 
patriotic  interest. 

While  at  the  State  capital  he  had  also  given  much  attention 
to  the  arrangement  and  preservation  of  the  neglected  archives 
of  the  Northwestern  Territory,  and  this  finally  led  to  the 
action  of  the  Legislature  in  requesting  him  to  edit  for  publica 
tion  the  papers  of  Arthur  St.  Clair,  General  in  the  French- 
English-Canadian  War  and  in  the  American  Revolution, 
President  of  the  Continental  Congress  and  the  first  Governor 
of  the  great  territory  consecrated  to  freedom  by  the  Ordinance 
of  1787,  out  of  which  have  now  sprung  the  five  splendid  States 
northwest  of  the  Ohio  River.  He  undertook  this  work  later, 
and  published  it  in  two  portly  octavo  volumes  in  1882.  It  is 
a  mine  of  information  concerning  the  development  of  the 
Northwest,  and  embodies,  of  course,  more  original  historical 


xiv  Introduction 

material  covering  the  period  and  range  of  St.  Clair's  activities 
than  can  be  found  elsewhere. 

By  1870  the  determination  of  the  leading  newspapers  of  the 
West  to  have  a  news  system  of  their  own  to  cover  the  local 
field  and  deal  on  somewhat  equal  terms  with  the  New  York 
Associated  Press,  led  to  Mr.  Smith's  being  called  by  leading 
Western  publishers  to  undertake  the  organization  and  manage 
ment  of  a  strong  associated  press  with  headquarters  at  Chicago. 
This  work  was  done  with  such  system,  skill  and  general  success 
that  twelve  years  later  the  New  York  Associated  Press  de 
cided  to  unite  the  two  associations  under  the  control  of  a  Joint 
Executive  Committee  which,  dispensing  with  the  services  of 
the  Hon.  Erastus  Brooks,  called  Mr.  Smith  from  Chicago  to 
New  York  to  assume  the  general  management.  The  contract 
made  in  1882  proved  so  satisfactory  in  its  workings  that  it  was 
renewed  in  1887.  Its  second  expiration  marked  the  period 
of  internal  dissensions  in  the  East  that  led  to  rival  associa 
tions  here,  and  returned  Mr.  Smith  to  Chicago. 

During  his  first  service  in  Chicago,  President  Hayes,  who 
had  always  retained  the  early  Cincinnati  friendship,  had  sug 
gested  to  him  an  entry  into  the  Cabinet,  probably  as  Post 
master-General,  but  Mr.  Smith,  whose  natural  bent  was 
singularly  modest  and  retiring,  was  convinced  that  the  work 
he  was  already  doing  for  the  Associated  Press  was  better  suited 
to  his  training,  and  declined.  The  President  then  made  him 
Collector  of  the  port  of  Chicago,  a  post  he  was  able  to  hold 
without  interference  with  his  professional  duties.  It  was  soon 
found,  however,  that  he  regarded  it  as  far  from  a  sinecure. 
The  Chicago  merchants  were  full  of  complaints  that  by  reason 
of  undervaluations  and  damage  allowances  at  the  port  of  New 
York  (then  under  the  collectorship  of  Chester  A.  Arthur)  they 
were  placed  at  a  great  disadvantage  in  direct  importations. 
Mr.  Smith  took  up  the  subject  with  vigor.  He  was  involved 
in  several  heated  controversies  with  Judge  Hilton  and  other 
importers  at  the  East,  but  succeeded  in  maintaining  his  posi 
tion.  This  compelled  a  change  in  the  methods  of  valuation  in 


Introduction  xv 

New  York,  resulted  in  a  great  increase  in  the  direct  importa 
tions  at  the  port  of  Chicago,  and  aided  to  quicken  the  enor 
mous  business  development  of  that  city.  True  to  his  newspaper 
instincts,  Mr.  Smith  utterly  refused  to  be  placed  in  a  false 
position  by  Eastern  critics;  and  the  Collector  of  the  port  of 
Chicago  thus  became  a  frequent  contributor  to  the  public  jour 
nals  both  East  and  West,  in  prosecution  of  the  abuse  he  had 
undertaken  to  correct  in  the  New  York  Custom  House.  It 
is  high  praise  that  when  he  subsequently  became 'for  ten  years 
a  resident  of  New  York  no  one  was  found  to  raise  the  question 
that  his  official  conduct  in  these  matters  had  been  other  than 
correct,  and  useful  to  the  public  service. 

While  Mr.  Smith  lived  in  New  York,  he  became  actively  in 
terested  in  the  development  of  the  first  successful  type-setting 
machine.  I  had  found  this  in  a  crude  state  in  the  hands  of  a 
number  of  stenographers  and  others  in  Washington,  who  had 
nearly  exhausted  their  available  capital.  Becoming  convinced 
after  several  visits  and  careful  inspection  that  it  contained  the 
germ  of  success,  I  undertook  the  organization  of  a  syndicate 
of  newspaper  proprietors  who  should  take  over  its  control, 
develop  it  by  actual  use,  and  ultimately  organize  another  com 
pany  for  its  manufacture  and  introduction.  The  peculiarities 
of  the  different  inventors  and  of  some  of  the  owners  made  this 
a  task  of  no  little  difficulty.  I  asked  Mr.  Smith  to  join  me  at 
the  work.  At  my  request  he  made  several  visits  to  Washing 
ton  in  this  interest,  besides  aiding  me  with  some  of  the  West 
ern  publishers,  and  in  the  organization  of  the  new  company. 
In  this  way  he  became  involved  in  a  deal  of  most  helpful 
though  unpretentious  and  unrecognized  labor.  But  for  his 
tact  and  patience  in  treating  with  difficult  people,  it  is  hardly 
too  much  to  say  that  the  linotype  machine,  now  a  historic 
success,  and  used  in  nearly  all  the  leading  newspaper  offices 
and  publishing  houses  of  the  country,  might  readily  enough 
have  perished  in  some  of  its  early  struggles. 

Personally  Mr.  Smith  was  of  a  singularly  equable  tempera 
ment  and  amiable  disposition.  He  was  felt  to  be  the  best 


XVI 


Introduction 


organizer  the  newspapers  of  the  country  had  yet  found  for  the 
Associated  Press  work,  and  his  name  must  always  be  indelibly 
associated  with  the  enormous  development  of  telegraphic  news 
reports  throughout  the  continent  and  on  the  seas. 


WHITELAW  REID. 


451  MADISON  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK, 
3d  February,  1903. 


A  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  SLAVERY 


A  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF 
SLAVERY 


CHAPTER   I 


ANTI-SLAVERY    AGITATION    THROUGH    THE    PRESS    AND    RE 
LIGIOUS   ORGANIZATIONS — FEELING   IN   BORDER 
STATES — EARLY    SLAVE   CASES 

WITH  prophetic  spirit  Mr.  Calhoun  said  on  the  passage 
of  the  act  recognizing  war  with  Mexico,  that  a  deed 
had  been  done  from  which  the  country  would  not  be 
able  to  recover  for  a  long  time,  if  ever;  and  that  no  mortal 
could  tell  what  would  be  written  in  the  second  volume  of  our 
political  history  under  the  Constitution  which  this  wrongful 
act  opened.  There  is  no  more  striking,  no  more  pathetic  fig 
ure  in  American  history  than  this  favorite  statesman  of  the 
South  near  the  close  of  an  eminent  career,  surrounded  by  con 
temporaries  of  great  distinction,  presaging  the  years  of  conflict 
which  might  destroy  the  Union  they  all  loved  and  which  indeed 
did  destroy  that  institution,  the  cause  of  woes  innumerable — 
bringing  fraternal  peace  in  social  life  and  harmony  in  national 
councils  only  by  the  inexorable  law  of  atonement,  the  sacrifice 
of  innocent  blood.1  No  account  of  these  years  of  bitter  strife 

1  "  It  is  evident  that  he  foresaw  the  consequences  of  the  war  thus  precipitated. 
He  foresaw  that  it  would  result  in  the  acquisition  of  Mexican  territory.     He  knew 


2  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

would  be  a  correct  history  which  omitted  the  facts  of  slavery 
agitation  and  of  delusive  legislation  originating  in  a  necessity 
emergent  from  the  immoral  and  violent  character  of  the 
system  of  human  bondage.  This  was  so  interwoven  with 
public  prosperity  that  the  responsibility  for  its  continuance 
could  not  be  limited  to  sectional  lines.  The  agencies  of 
political  and  social  order  were  committed  to  its  support  to 
an  extent  that  rendered  it  difficult  to  find  a  practical  way  for 
its  extinction.  Legislative  invasion  of  constitutional  rights 
was  out  of  the  question ;  moral  suasion  might  do  much.  To 
what  extent  this  thought  influenced  conditions  will  be  seen  as 
we  trace  the  growth  of  anti-slavery  sentiment. 

If  there  is  one  thing  clearly  established,  it  is  that  slavery 
was  deprecated  by  the  men  who  formed  the  Constitution ; 
who,  recognizing  that  such  an  institution  was  inconsistent  with 
Christian  civilization,  inconsistent  with  the  great  principles  of 
civil  liberty  for  which  the  Colonies  had  contended,  and  which 
constitute  the  basis  of  our  Republic,  refrained  from  inserting 
in  that  great  charter  a  name  so  repulsive  to  freedom.  We 
must  conclude  that  they  were  percipient  witnesses  to  the  pub 
lic  sentiment  of  that  day.  There  was  no  State  free  from  the 
taint  of  slavery,  and  the  feeling  that  it  was  injurious  to  society 
was  in  no  sense  dependent  upon  sectional  lines.  Its  ultimate 
extinction  was  generally  confidently  expected:  emancipation 
was  to  be  the  rule.  This  came  early  north  of  Maryland  and 
it  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  if  there  had  been  no 
inhibition  of  the  African  slave  trade,  emancipation  would  have 
followed  within  a  reasonable  period  in  Delaware,  Maryland, 

that  the  aversion  of  the  North  to  the  institution  of  slavery  would  cause  the  ma 
jority  of  Congress  to  exclude  that  part  of  the  country  interested  in  this  institution 
from  any  share  in  the  advantages  to  be  derived  from  the  admission  of  that  institu 
tion  into  the  territory  thus  acquired.  He  knew  that  if  the  North,  with  no  interest 
in  the  matter  except  a  moral  sentiment,  was  so  determined,  it  would  be  met  with 
an  equal  determination  of  resistance  by  the  Southern  States.  He  spoke  of  this  as 
the  '  terrible  difficulty ' ;  and  it  was  so  for  him,  for  he  saw  in  it  the  elements  of 
disunion  and  of  blood.  .  .  .  He  earnestly  sought  to  prevent  the  occasion  for 
renewing  the  strife  between  the  sections." — L.  Q.  C.  Lamar's  Oration  on  the  Oc 
casion  of  the  Unveiling  of  the  Statue  of  John  C.  Calhoun,  April  26,  1887. 


Q 

Anti-Slavery  Agitation  y^v     3 

Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Kentucky  and  Tennessee.1  After 
the  year  1808  the  relations  of  these  States  to  the  institution  of 
slavery  began  to  change.  The  cotton  and  rice  States  looked 
to  the  older  States  for  supplies  of  laborers,  no  longer  to  be 
lawfully  procured  from  abroad,  and  the  interstate  slave  trade 
became  a  thriving  business  and  the  source  of  never-ending  dis 
cord.  In  the  exhaustive  discussion  of  property  taxation  and 
representation  in  the  Virginia  convention  in  1829,  light  was 
thrown  on  every  phase  of  the  slavery  question,  which  the  exi 
gencies  of  party  politics  in  succeeding  years  were  unable  to 
obscure.  Mr.  Mercer,  one  of  the  ablest  of  the  members  of 
that  remarkable  convention,  said  that  the  tables  of  the  natural 
growth  of  the  slave  population  demonstrated,  when  compared 
with  the  increase  of  its  numbers  in  the  commonwealth  for  the 
preceding  twenty  years,  that  an  annual  revenue  of  not  less  than 
a  million  and  a  half  of  dollars  had  been  derived  from  the  ex 
portation  of  a  part  of  that  increase.  Seven  years  later  the 
Virginia  Times  published  an  estimate  of  the  money  arising 
from  the  sale  of  slaves  exported  during  the  year  1836,  making 
the  aggregate  §24,000,000,  which  showed  the  enormous  profit 
ableness  of  slave  breeding.3 

If  the  possibility  of  such  a  result  had  been  placed  before  the 
patriotic  statesmen  of  1787,  doubtless  they  would  have  made 

1  This  opinion  is  derived  from  the  very  highest  authority.     Mr.  Clay  in  1829, 
before  the  Colonization  Society,  said  it  was  believed  that  nowhere  in  the  farming 
portions  of  the  United  States  would  slave  labor  be  generally  employed,  if  the  pro 
prietors  were  not  tempted  to  breed  slaves  by  the   high   prices  of  the  Southern 
market. 

2  The  Times  gave  the  whole  number  exported  as  120,000,  of  whom  80,000  were 
taken  out  of  the  State  by  their  owners  who  removed  to  new  States,  and  40,000  were 
sold  to  dealers.     The  average  price  per  head  was  $600.    See  Niks' 's  Register,  vol. 
li.,  p.  83. 

In  the  Legislature  of  Virginia,  in  1832,  Thomas  Jefferson  Randolph  declared 
that  Virginia  had  been  converted  into  "  one  grand  menagerie,  where  men  are 
reared  for  the  market  like  oxen  for  the  shambles."  This  was  confirmed  by  Mr. 
Gholson,  another  member.  See  reports  in  the  Richmond  Whig  of  that  year. 

"In  Virginia  and  other  grain-growing  States,  the  blacks  do  not  support  them 
selves,  and  the  only  profit  their  masters  derive  from  them  is,  repulsive  as  the  idea 
may  justly  seem,  in  breeding  them,  like  other  live  stock,  for  the  more  Southern 
States." — Report  American  Colonization  Society,  1833. 


4  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

some  provision  to  meet  it.  They  dealt  with  existing  condi 
tions,  as  in  all  human  probability  they  would  remain  for  cen 
turies.  They  believed  that  by  striking  down  the  African  slave 
trade  no  act  of  abolition  would  be  required  for  the  ultimate 
extinction  of  domestic  slavery.  Twenty  years  before  when  the 
means  for  obtaining  slaves  were  cut  off  the  area  into  which 
slaves  could  be  introduced  was  restricted  by  the  immortal 
Ordinance  of  1/87,  which  dedicated  an  empire  to  freedom. 
It  was  believed  when  a  foreign  supply  was  altogether  pre 
vented,  and  the  demand  for  free  labor  increased  with  the  ex 
pansion  of  the  country,  that  slavery  would  die  out  of  itself.1 
But  this  benevolent  design  of  the  fathers  was  defeated  by  the 
inventive  genius  of  man  which  produced  the  cotton  gin  and 
revolutionized  trade. 

Opposition  to  the  institution  of  domestic  slavery  arose  from 
religious  convictions  as  to  its  sinfulness,  or  from  economic  and 
social  policies.  The  resistance  of  those  who  with  Mr.  Jeffer 
son  condemned  it  because  of  its  destructive  influence  became 
as  impotent  as  his,  or  succumbed  to  the  violence  of  political 
forces;  while  that  having  its  source  in  religious  feeling  played 
an  important  part  in  the  creation  of  a  third  party.  The  So 
ciety  of  Friends  led  all  other  denominations  in  the  employment 
of  moral  influence  for  the  eradication  of  slavery,  though  there 
were  not  wanting  outspoken  utterances  in  the  Presbyterian, 
Baptist  and  Methodist  churches  at  an  early  day,  especially  in 
Ohio,  Kentucky  and  Tennessee.3  The  law  as  laid  down  by 
Church  authority  in  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  in  the  closing 

1  See  a  notable  speech  of  Senator  Mason,  of  Virginia,  Jan.  23,   1860,  in  which 
this  purpose  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  is  distinctly  declared.     The  Ordi 
nance  of  1787,  he  said,  contained  the  sixth  compact  not  because  of  antipathy  to 
domestic  slavery  per  se,  but  to  strike  a  blow  at  the  African  slave  trade. 

2  "  Slavery  depraves  and  degrades  the  slave  by  removing  him  from  the  strongest 
natural  checks  to  human  corruption.     ...     It  dooms  him  to  hopeless  igno 
rance.     How  horrible  must  that  system  be  which,  in  the  opinion  of  its  strongest 
advocates  demands,  as  a  necessary  condition  of  its  existence,   that  knowledge  be 
shut  out  from  the  minds  of  those  who  live  under  it ;  that  they  should  be  reduced 
as  near  as  possible  to  the  level  of  the  brutes,  and  that  the  powers  of  their  souls 
should  be  crushed.     They  have  no  access  to  the  Scriptures,  to  a  regular  Gospel 
ministry,   and  to  the  domestic  means  of   grace.       They   suffer  all    that    can   be 


Anti-Slavery  Agitation  5 

years  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  made  emphatic  in  the 
Western  States  by  such  practical  application  as  forbade  slave 
holders  serving  as  officers,  and  requiring  slaves  to  be  emanci 
pated.1  Dr.  Robert  J.  Breckinridge  found  great  satisfaction 
in  the  reflection  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  Kentucky 
had  always  been  sound  on  this  subject;  that  it  had  steadily  in 
culcated  that  the  holding  of  slaves  was  analogous  to  political 
despotism,  and  that  the  attempt  to  render  it  permanent  was  an 
effort  to  counteract  the  laws  of  nature  and  the  ordinances  of 
God,  and  must  of  necessity  overwhelm  in  hopeless  ruin  those 
who  engaged  in  so  insane  an  enterprise.  "The  only  safe 
course,  as  it  is  the  only  one  consistent  with  Christian  duty,  is 
to  improve  the  slaves  and  to  emancipate  and  remove  them  as 
rapidly  as  they  are  prepared  for  freedom."  The  local  or  State 

inflicted  by  wanton  caprice,  by  grasping  avarice,  by  brutal  lust,  by  malignant  and 
by  insane  anger." — Address  of  the  Synod  of  Kentucky,  1796. 

This  solemn  pronouncement  of  those  who  daily  came  in  contact  with  slavery 
was  reaffirmed  by  the  Synod  in  1834  and  in  1835.  "If  we  could  calculate  the 
amount  of  woe  endured  by  ill-treated  slaves,"  continued  the  address  of  1835,  "  it 
would  overwhelm  every  compassionate  heart — it  would  move  even  the  obdurate  to 
Sympathy." 

In  1836  the  Synod  adopted  the  following  resolution  :  "That  a  committee  of 
ten  be  appointed  to  consist  of  an  equal  number  of  ministers  and  elders,  whose 
business  it  shall  be  to  digest  and  prepare  a  plan  for  the  moral  and  religious  instruc 
tion  of  our  slaves,  and  for  their  future  emancipation,  and  to  report  such  plan  to  the 
several  Presbyteries  within  our  bounds,  for  their  consideration  and  approval." 

The  plan  formulated  under  this  minute  was  a  practical  scheme  for  the  instruc 
tion  and  emancipation  of  the  slave,  and  is  a  most  able  indictment  of  the  whole 
system. — Pamphlet,  pp.  1-36. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  1780,  declared 
that  slavery  was  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God,  man  and  nature,  and  to  the  dictates 
of  conscience  and  pure  religion,  and  hurtful  to  society.  This  testimony  was  re 
peatedly  reaffirmed  in  succeeding  years.  Compare  also  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Dis 
cipline. 

1  Synod  of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  1789  and  the  General  Assembly  in 
1794.  In  1815  and  again  in  1818  this  body  took  action,  saying  that  slavery  was 
totally  irreconcilable  with  the  spirit  and  principles  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  In 
1845  this  view  was  reversed.  In  1821  the  Associate  Presbyterian  Synod  at  Pitts- 
burg  forbade  communicants  to  deal  in  slaves  as  property,  and  required  them  to 
set  their  slaves  free.  Any  member  found  possessed  of  slaves  after  April  I, 
1822,  should  be  considered  suspended.  This  synod  embraced  the  western  part  of 
Virginia. 


6  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

idea  of  responsibility  was  repudiated  by  those  Kentucky 
Presbyterians  who,  while  opposing  the  Garrisonian  policy  as 
dangerous  and  ruinous,  yet  held  with  him  that  slavery  was 
bound  up  with  national  life.  "It  is  a  national  sin,  as  it  must 
be  committed  by  the  people  in  their  capacity  as  a  common 
wealth,  and  therefore  will  inevitably  lead  to  national  calamity — 
so  sure  as  a  righteous  God  rules  among  the  nations  " — a  prophecy 
literally  fulfilled,  which  was  made  in  the  light  of  the  words  of 
the  Psalmist,  "  The  Lord  executeth  righteousness  and  judgment 
for  all  that  are  oppressed. 

The  Friends,  in  the  spirit  of  George  Fox,  whose  admonition 
was  in  their  hearts,  were  moved  to  bear  testimony  against  do 
mestic  slavery  as  it  existed  in  America  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
seventeenth  century.  In  1688  the  Friends  of  the  Germantown 
monthly  meeting  suggested  that  action  be  taken  on  the  condi 
tion  of  the  slaves,  but  it  was  delayed  by  the  yearly  meetings 
of  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey  until  1696,  and  thereafter  the 
agitation  was  persistent  throughout  the  South  as  well  as  the 
North.  In  Virginia  members  were  disowned  if  they  failed  to 
set  their  slaves  free,  and  many  of  those  who  liberated  their 
slaves  remunerated  them  for  past  services. 

Some  years  ago  one  who  had  been  conspicuous  as  a  leader  in 
the  anti-slavery  contest  endeavored  to  show  the  unfaithfulness 
of  current  history  in  dealing  with  the  genesis  of  modern  abo 
litionism,  and  thereupon  a  controversy  sprang  up  in  the  pub 
lic  prints  as  to  whether  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  Benjamin 
Lundy  or  Charles  Osborne  was  entitled  to  be  styled  the  first 
Apostle  of  Emancipation.1  George  W.  Julian,  the  writer  who 
challenged  "the  truth  of  history,"  clearly  established  the 
claims  of  Mr.  Osborne  to  be  mentioned  before  either  Lundy 
or  Garrison,  but  strangely  overlooked  the  older  claims  of  an 
other  whose  career  was  strikingly  like  that  of  Lundy.  John 
Woolman,  a  Friend,  who  was  born  in  New  Jersey  about  1720, 

1  International  Review  for  1882.  George  W.  Julian,  who  opened  the  discussion 
in  the  June  number,  was  followed  by  Oliver  Johnson,  Mr.  Garrison's  friend,  in 
September.  Mr.  Julian  rejoined  in  November.  See  also  vol.  ii.,  Indiana  His 
torical  Society  Publications. 


Anti-Slavery  Agitation  7 

began  life  as  a  clerk  in  a  store,  and  having  unusual  ability  was 
frequently  employed  to  write  deeds  and  wills.  As  these  often 
had  to  do  with  the  transfer  or  bequest  of  slaves  as  property, 
after  a  good  deal  of  hesitancy  his  conscientious  scruples  moved 
him  to  decline  further  work  of  this  kind,  and  to  remonstrate 
with  those  who  applied  to  him  on  the  sinfulness  of  slavery. 

When  about  twenty-six  years  of  age  he  visited  North  Caro 
lina,  where  he  sought  to  arouse  the  consciences  of  slavehold 
ers,  and  wrote  an  essay  entitled  Considerations  on  the  Keeping 
of  Negroes,  which  was  published  at  the  request  of  friends  in 
1732.  Ten  years  later  a  second  part  was  published,  in  which 
he  pictured  the  horrors  of  the  slave  trade.  He  met  the  ob 
jections  made  to  emancipation  by  saying  that, 

as  the  owners  were  greatly  indebted  to  slaves  for  unrequited  ser 
vices,  they  should  submit  to  any  inconvenience.  .  .  .  He  who, 
with  a  view  to  self-interest,  buys  a  slave  made  so  by  violence,  and 
on  the  strength  of  such  purchase  holds  him  a  slave,  thereby  joins 
hands  with  those  who  committed  that  violence,  and  in  the  nature  of 
things  becomes  chargeable  with  the  guilt.  .  .  .  For  were  there 
none  to  purchase  slaves,  they  who  live  by  stealing  and  selling  them 
would,  of  consequence,  do  less  at  it. 

After  his  death,  which  occurred  in  1772,  his  journal,  which  was 
published,  had  a  wide  circulation.  It  shows  that  his  life  was 
given  to  the  work  of  emancipation.  He  travelled  from  colony 
to  colony,  preaching,  remonstrating  and  counselling.  While 
on  a  visit  to  Long  Island  in  1756  he  makes  this  entry: 

My  mind  was  deeply  engaged  in  this  visit,  both  in  public  and  pri 
vate;  and  at  several  places  where  I  was,  on  observing  that  they  had 
slaves,  I  found  myself  under  a  necessity,  in  a  friendly  way,  to  labor 
with  them  on  that  subject;  expressing,  as  was  observed,  the  incon 
sistencies  of  that  practice  with  the  purity  of  the  Christian  religion, 
and  the  ill  effects  of  it  manifested  amongst  us. 

The  next  year  in  Maryland,  "a  deep  and  painful  exercise 
came  upon  him."  He  says:  "As  the  people  in  this  and  the 
Southern  provinces  live  much  on  the  labor  of  slaves,  many  of 


8  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

whom  are  hardly  used,  my  concern  was  that  I  might  attend 
with  singleness  of  heart  to  the  voice  of  the  true  Shepherd,  and 
be  so  supported  as  to  remain  unmoved  at  the  faces  of  men." 

At  the  Pennsylvania  yearly  meeting  in  1758  he  was  re 
quested  to  visit  those  who  held  slaves.  "Many  Friends  said 
that  they  believed  liberty  was  the  negroes'  right ;  to  which,  at 
length,  no  opposition  was  made  publicly.  A  minute  was  made 
on  the  subject  more  full  than  any  heretofore."  While  in  at 
tendance  on  the  yearly  meeting  at  Newport,  Rhode  Island,  he 
found  that  a  large  number  of  negroes  had  been  imported  and 
were  on  sale  by  a  member  of  the  Society  of  Friends.  He 
drew  up  a  petition  to  the  Legislature  to  take  action  to  discour 
age  the  future  importation  of  slaves,  which  was  adopted  by 
the  meeting.  He  also  visited  the  slaveholders  and  labored 
with  them.  "By  the  tenderness  they  manifested  in  regard  to 
the  practice,  and  the  concern  several  of  them  expressed  in  re 
lation  to  the  manner  of  disposing  of  their  negroes  after  their 
decease,  I  believed  that  a  good  exercise  was  spreading  among 
them."  At  the  quarterly  meeting  at  Gunpowder,  Maryland, 
"in  bowedness  of  spirit  I  had  to  open  with  much  plainness 
that  I  felt  respecting  Friends  living  in  fullness  on  the  labors  of 
the  poor  oppressed  negroes."  He  gives  this  picture  of  slavery 
as  he  saw  it  in  Virginia  in  1756: 

Many  of  the  white  people  in  these  provinces  take  little  or  no  care 
of  negro  marriages;  and  when  negroes  marry  after  their  own  way 
some  make  so  little  account  of  these  marriages,  that,  with  views  of 
outward  interest,  they  often  part  men  from  their  wives  by  selling 
them  far  asunder;  which  is  common  when  estates  are  sold  by  execu 
tors  at  vendue.  Many  whose  labor  is  heavy  being  followed  at  their 
business  in  the  field  by  a  man  with  a  whip,  hired  for  that  purpose, 
have  in  common  little  else  allowed  but  one  peck  of  Indian  corn  and 
some  salt  for  one  week,  with  a  few  potatoes;  the  potatoes  they  com 
monly  raise  by  their  labor  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  The  cor 
rection  ensuing  on  their  disobedience  to  overseers,  or  slothfulness 
in  business,  is  often  very  severe,  and  sometimes  desperate.  Men 
and  women  have  many  times  scarcely  clothes  to  hide  their  nakedness, 
and  boys  and  girls,  ten  and  twelve  years  old,  are  often  quite  naked 


Anti-Slavery  Agitation  9 

among  the  master's  children.  Some  of  our  Society  and  some  of  the 
Society  called  New  Lights  use  some  endeavors  to  instruct  those 
they  have  in  reading,  but  in  common  this  is  not  only  neglected  but 
disapproved.  These  are  the  people  by  whose  labor  the  other 
inhabitants  are  in  a  great  measure  supported,  and  many  of  them  in 
the  luxuries  of  life;  these  are  the  people  who  have  made  no  agree 
ment  to  serve  us  and  who  have  not  forfeited  their  liberty  that  we 
know  of;  these  are  the  souls  for  whom  Christ  died,  and  for  our 
conduct  toward  them  we  must  answer  before  Him  who  is  no  respecter 
of  persons. 

The  controverted  thought  of  Jefferson  in  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  "that  all  men  are  created  equal,"  was  much 
better  expressed  by  Woolman  twenty  years  before  the  Decla 
ration.  In  conversation  with  a  colonel  of  militia  on  a  certain 
occasion  the  subject  of  slavery  was  considered,  when  Wool 
man  said:  "Men  having  power  too  often  misapply  it:  though 
we  made  slaves  of  the  negroes,  and  the  Turks  made  slaves  of 
the  Christians,  I  believe  that  liberty  is  the  natural  right  of  all 
men  equally  "  which  he  did  not  deny. 

The  labors  of  Woolman  were  crowned  with  success  in  mov 
ing  the  Society  of  Friends  generally  to  adopt  his  views  of  eman 
cipation.1  Early  in  the  nineteenth  century  members  of  the 
Society  in  the  Carolinas  and  Virginia  began  an  emigration  to 
the  Northwest  which  was  continued  for  many  years  and  which 
formed  considerable  societies  in  Ohio  and  Indiana.  They 
located  on  the  rich  lands  of  Warren,  Montgomery,  Butler 
and  Preble  counties  in  Ohio,  and  the  contiguous  counties  of 
Wayne,  Randolph,  Fayette  and  Henry  in  Indiana.  Those  who 
held  slaves  emancipated  them  and  all  cherished  a  dislike  of 
the  institution.  These  communities  bore  a  conspicuous  part 
in  the  political  struggles  that  began  in  the  thirties  and  con 
tinued  until  the  Civil  War.  Other  religious  and  earnest  men 
of  Southern  birth  located  in  the  lower  counties  of  these  States, 
and  of  their  number  many  became  leaders  in  the  anti-slavery 
movement.  Notable  among  these  were  the  Revs.  John  Ran- 
kin,  Samuel  Crothers,  William  Dicky,  James  H.  Dicky  of  the 

1  An  Anti-Slavery  Hero,  by  Robert  W.  Carroll,  in  Cincinnati  Gazette. 


io  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Chillicothe  Presbytery,  John  B.  Mahan,  Col.  Robert  Stewart 
and  Thomas  Morris.  The  inflexible  character  of  their  princi 
ples  is  shown  in  a  deed  executed  by  Obed  Denham,  the 
founder  of  Bethel,  in  which  are  given  two  lots  for  the  use  of 
the  members  of  the  regular  Baptist  church  "who  do  not  hold 
slaves,  nor  commune  at  the  Lord's  table  with  those  who  do 
practise  such  tyranny  over  their  fellow  creatures."  David 
Ammen  (who  gave  one  son,  Jacob,  to  the  army,  and  another, 
Daniel,  to  the  navy  of  the  United  States),  a  Virginian,  pub 
lished  the  anti-slavery  writings  of  John  Rankin. 

These  men  and  the  Puritan  descendants  located  on  the 
upper  Ohio  were  pioneers  in  the  work  of  promoting,  early  in 
the  century,  a  moral  sentiment  antagonistic  to  slavery  in  the 
Northwest,  which  made  that  region  a  battle  ground  equal  in 
importance  to  New  England  when  the  political  phase  of  the 
conflict  between  the  two  widely  different  forms  of  civilization 
under  our  government  became  prominent.  How  the  hold  on 
the  religious  communities  in  North  Carolina,  Tennessee  and 
Kentucky  established  largely  through  the  labors  of  Woolman, 
Osborne  and  Lundy  was  lost  will  become  apparent  with  the 
progress  of  events.  These  earnest  ministers  were  concerned 
with  the  sinfulness  of  the  force  that  made  one  human  being 
the  slave  of  another,  deprived  him  of  the  means  of  enlighten 
ment,  intellectual  and  spiritual,  and  established  in  the  very 
midst  of  a  progressive  civilization  a  barbarism.  They  profited 
by  the  lesson  which  the  Indians  on  the  head  waters  of  the 
Maumee  gave  to  some  missionaries  sent  among  them  before 
their  removal  to  the  far  West.8  The  missionaries  bore  with 
them  a  letter  in  the  Indian  style,  addressed  to  the  Delaware 
nation,  and  were  received  with  dignified  courtesy.  After  a 

1  James  G.  Birney  and  his  Times,  p.  164. 

2  The  last  of  the  Ohio  Indians  were  removed  beyond  the  Mississippi  in  1831. 
These  were  Wyandots.     Under  treaties  made  in  1817  and  1818,  the  Delawares, 
Shawanese  and  other  tribes  ceded  for  perpetual  annuities  all  that  part  of  the  State 
north  of  the   Greenville   treaty  line  and  west  of  the   Firelands,   reserving  their 
homes,  which  were  on  the  Auglaize  and  Sandusky.     These  reservations  were  sur 
rendered  later  for  lands  west  of  the  Mississippi.     Hough's  Map  of  Ohio,  dated 
1814,  shows  a  little  over  one-third  of  the  State  held  by  the  Indians. 


Anti-Slavery  Agitation  n 

council   had    been  convened  and   the  business  discussed    for 
fourteen  days,  they  were  dismissed  with  the  following  answer: 

They  rejoiced  exceedingly  at  our  happiness  in  thus  being  favored 
by  the  Great  Spirit,  and  felt  very  grateful  that  we  had  condescended 
to  remember  our  red  brethren  in  the  wilderness.  But  they  could 
not  help  recollecting  that  we  had  a  people  among  us,  whom,  because 
they  differed  from  us  in  color,  we  had  made  slaves  of,  and  made 
them  suffer  great  hardships  and  lead  miserable  lives.  Now  they 
could  not  see  any  reason,  if  a  people  being  black  entitled  us  thus  to 
deal  with  them,  why  a  red  color  should  not  equally  justify  the  same 
treatment.  They  therefore  had  determined  to  wait,  to  see  whether 
all  the  black  people  amongst  us  were  made  thus  happy  and  joyful 
before  they  would  put  confidence  in  our  promises;  for  they  thought 
a  people  who  had  suffered  so  much  and  so  long  by  our  means,  should 
be  entitled  to  our  first  attention;  and  therefore  they  had  sent  back 
the  two  missionaries,  with  many  thanks,  promising  that  when  they 
saw  the  black  people  among  us  restored  to  freedom  and  happiness 
they  would  gladly  receive  our  missionaries.1 

If  the  red  man  reasoned  thus  logically  from  irreconcilable 
conditions,  would  not  others  to  whom  the  Gospel  might  be 
preached,  reason  likewise?  These  anti-slavery  pioneers  did 
not  shrink  from  the  task  and  responsibility  which  this  view  pre 
sented,  but  proclaimed  the  brotherhood  of  man,  including  the 
African : 

Is  he  not  Man,  though  sweet  Religion's  voice 
Ne'er  bade  the  mourner  in  his  God  rejoice  ? 
Is  he  not  Man,  though  Knowledge  never  shed 
Her  quickening  beams  on  his  neglected  head? 
Is  he  not  Man,  by  sin  and  suffering  tried  ? 
Is  he  not  Man,  for  whom  the  Saviour  died  ? 

In  this  spirit  the  crusade  was  conducted,  and  the  earnestness 
of  the  workers,  though  really  few  in  number,  tended  to  shake 
the  entire  social  system  throughout  the  Union.  The  work  of 
the  churches  was  supplemented  by  organizations  for  the  promo 
tion  of  emancipation  through  the  circulation  of  documents, 
and  for  the  care  and  protection  of  free  people  of  color. 

1  The  Star  in  the  West,  p.  232. 


12  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Charles  Osborne,  who  organized  the  Tennessee  Manumission 
Society,  in  1814  removed  to  Mount  Pleasant,  Ohio,  where  he 
issued  the  first  number  of  the  Philanthropist,  September  12, 
1817.  To  Benjamin  Lundy,  who  in  1815  had  organized  at  St. 
Clairsville  the  Union  Humane  Society,  which  shortly  com 
prised  five  hundred  members,1  he  proposed  a  partnership  in 
the  publication  business.  Before  this  could  be  consummated 
Osborne  sold  his  paper  and  removed  in  1819  to  Indiana,  where 
he  continued  in  the  ministry  as  an  orthodox  Friend.2 

Lundy  issued  the  first  number  of  his  Genius  of  Universal 
Emancipation,  at  Mount  Pleasant,  Seventh  month,  4th,  1821. 
It  consisted  of  fourteen  pages,  magazine  form,  two  columns 
to  the  page;  and  it  was  designed  to  take  the  place  of  the 
Emancipator,  which  had  been  published  at  Jonesborough, 
Tennessee,  by  Elihu  Embree.  In  his  address  to  the  public 
Lundy  says  that  the  excitement  arising  from  the  discussions 
in  Congress  on  the  proposition  to  admit  Missouri  extended 
"from  Maine  to  New  Orleans,  and  from  the  shores  of  the 
Atlantic  to  the  savage  wilds  of  the  West  " ;  that  the  prejudice 
of  education  was  vanishing  before  the  luminous  orb  of  truth; 
and  that  "the  voice  of  the  Eternal  "  had  decreed  the  annihi 
lation  of  slavery.  The  Genius,  which  for  a  time  was  published 
in  Tennessee  and  later  in  Baltimore,  had  a  stormy  career.  The 
support  which  Lundy  received  for  a  time  and  which  seemed 
to  justify  the  employment  of  Mr.  Garrison  as  a  writer,  fell 
away  after  the  election  of  Andrew  Jackson  in  1828.  The 
weekly  issue  was  suspended  in  January,  1829,  but  the  monthly 
was  continued  some  time  longer. 

Undue  importance  has  been  given  to  these  and  other  anti- 
slavery  publications.  Their  circulation  was  very  limited,  and 
their  influence  slight.  They  are  interesting  as  mile-stones  in  a 
progressive  movement,  as  marking  the  struggles  and  sacrifices 
of  sincere  and  earnest  souls  in  a  cause  having  for  its  motive 
the  good  of  mankind. 

The  emigration  from  the  South  to  the  new  States  had  a 

1  Earle's  Life  of  Lundy,  p.  16. 

2  See  pamphlet.      The  Rank  of  Charles  Osborne  as  an  Anti- Slavery  Pioneer. 


Anti-Slavery  Agitation  13 

double  aspect.  All  came  to  better  their  condition,  but  not  all 
to  escape  the  morally  deteriorative  influence  of  slavery.  Many 
were  active  in  promoting  the  adoption  of  black  laws  to  check 
the  immigration  of  free  negroes  and  to  prevent  the  elevation 
of  those  residing  in  the  free  States,  which  the  prevailing  preju 
dice  against  negroes  rendered  easy  of  accomplishment.  Under 
the  territorial  government  free  blacks  voted  for  delegates  to 
the  convention  to  form  a  constitution  for  Ohio,  but  in  the  con 
vention  they  were  deprived  of  the  privilege  in  the  new  State 
by  the  casting  vote  of  the  presiding  officer,  who  was  a  Vir 
ginian,  and  who  became  the  first  executive.  Under  this  in 
fluence  the  government  was  purely  a  white  man's  government.1 
While  slavery  did  not  exist  here  as  in  Indiana  and  Illinois,  and 
every  attempt  to  nullify  the  sixth  compact  of  the  Ordinance 
of  1787  was  defeated,  yet  hundreds  of  slaves  were  hired  of  their 
masters  in  Virginia  and  Kentucky,  and  employed  as  laborers 
in  clearing  the  forests  and  cultivating  the  land ;  and  slave 
owners  travelled  through  the  State  accompanied  by  their  serv 
ants  without  annoyance  or  loss.  The  time  came  when  all  this 
was  radically  changed,  but  it  was  after  the  adoption  of  an  ag 
gressive  policy  by  the  South — after  the  contest  over  the  right 
of  petition  and  the  freedom  of  the  press — when  it  became  clear 
that  if  slavery  was  not  to  mildew  the  social  and  political  life  of 
the  free  States,  the  negative  policy  of  tolerance  must  be 
changed  to  deprecation  and  resistance. 

1  The  Ordinance  of  1787  granted  the  suffrage  to  all  free  male  inhabitants  in  the 
district,  possessed  of  a  freehold  of  fifty  acres,  besides  residence  qualification. 
This  was  changed  by  the  State  constitution. 

Who  should  be  considered  white  within  the  meaning  of  the  State  constitution, 
was  repeatedly  considered  in  the  State  courts,  with  the  result  that  all  adult  males 
nearer  white  than  black  "were  entitled  to  enjoy  every  political  and  social  privi 
lege  of  the  white  citizens."  The  Supreme  Court  in  1842  by  Chief  Justice  Lane,  in 
Jeffries  vs.  Aukeney,  n  Ohio,  372.  See  also  Thacker  vs.  Hawke,  n  Ohio,  373  ; 
Williams  vs.  The  School  Directors,  etc.,  Wright's  Reports,  178.  At  the  February 
term  in  1860,  the  Supreme  Court  (case  of  Anderson  vs.  Election  Officers  of 
Hamilton,  29  Ohio,  568)  decided  that  a  person  of  part  negro  blood,  but  more 
white  than  black,  was  a  legal  voter  under  the  constitution  of  Ohio.  This  testi 
mony  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  citizen  in  the  Ordinance  and  in  the  first  and 
second  constitutions  of  Ohio  directly  controverts  the  reasoning  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  Dred  Scott  case. 


1 4  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

After  the  restriction  of  suffrage  in  the  Ohio  constitutional 
convention  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  president,  an  attempt 
was  made  to  exclude  colored  persons  from  giving  testimony  in 
courts  of  justice  against  "rhite  persons,  which  was  defeated  by 
a  vote  of  seventeen  to  sixteen.  Yet  in  the  face  of  this;  in 
spite  of  the  obligations  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  which 
secured  the  benefit  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  and  of  trial  by 
jury,  and  which  were  not  changed  or  suspended  by  the  consti 
tution,  but  confirmed  and  continued;  in  spite  of  other  guaran 
tees  of  personal  liberty,  the  Legislature  in  1804  and  1807 
enacted  the  rigorous  black  laws,  which  provided : 

1st.  That  no  black  or  mulatto  person  should  be  permitted  to 
settle  or  reside  in  the  State,  unless  he  should  first  procure  a 
certificate  of  his  freedom  under  the  seal  of  a  court  of  record ; 
that  no  such  person  should  emigrate  and  settle  within  the 
State  until  he  entered  into  bonds,  with  two  freehold  securities, 
in  the  sum  of  five  hundred  dollars,  condition  for  his  good  be 
havior,  and  the  payment  of  all  charges  which  might  be  in 
curred  on  his  account,  for  which  bond  and  certificate  he  was 
to  pay  one  dollar ;  it  was  made  the  duty  of  township  officers 
to  remove  out  of  the  State  any  such  emigrant  not  complying 
with  these  laws;  and  no  resident  of  the  State  was  permitted  to 
employ  any  colored  person  not  having  such  a  certificate,  under 
severe  penalties. 

2d.  That  no  black  or  mulatto  person  should  be  sworn,  or 
give  evidence,  in  any  court,  or  elsewhere  in  the  State,  in  any 
case  where  a  white  person  was  a  party,  or  in  any  prosecution 
on  behalf  of  the  State  against  a  white  person. 

3d.  That  no  black  or  mulatto  should  participate  in  the 
school  fund  arising  from  donations  made  by  Congress  for  the 
support  of  schools. 

4th.  That  no  black  or  mulatto  should  be  entitled  to  trial  by 
jury  even  in  cases  involving  his  personal  liberty. 

How  could  a  certificate  of  freedom  under  the  seal  of  a 
court  be  procured?  It  was  not  made  the  duty  of  any  court 
to  hear  any  personal  application  for  that  purpose,  or  to  issue 
such  certificates  in  any  case  whatever.  This  requirement 


Anti-Slavery  Agitation  15 

reversed  all  the  ordinary  rules  of  justice  and  the  maxims  of  the 
law,  by  raising  the  presumption  that  every  one  was  a  slave 
until  he  should  prove  himself  to  be  a  freeman  in  a  State  dedi 
cated  to  freedom.  Thus  prejudice  against  the  pariah  and  the 
hope  to  form  a  community  free  from  his  degrading  example 
led  to  injustice  and  the  sacrifice  of  principles.  Thus  one  class 
of  persons,  living  under  the  aegis  of  the  constitution  of  the 
State,  was  forcibly  deprived  of  the  benefits  enjoyed  by  another 
class,  in  direct  violation  of  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  that 
instrument. 

It  was  stated  at  the  time  that  the  law  requiring  bonds  as  a 
condition  of  residence  was  not  intended  to  be  complied  with, 
but  was  designed  to  drive  the  colored  people  from  the  State ; 
as  failing  to  comply  with  its  provisions,  they  could  be  forcibly 
removed.  And  yet  the  constitution  was  formed  for  a  mixed 
population,  and  was  designed  to  give  security  to  every  class, 
in  the  acquisition  and  protection  of  property,  and  in  the  pur 
suit  of  happiness  and  the  enjoyment  of  personal  liberty.  And 
so  every  provision  of  these  extraordinary  laws  was  repugnant 
to  the  constitution,  and  to  the  "moral  sensibilities  of  the  peo 
ple,"  who  year  after  year  appealed  to  the  Legislature  to  blot 
them  out  of  the  statute  books.  The  effect  of  such  legislation, 
without  intelligent  public  opinion  to  support  it,  as  in  all  simi 
lar  cases,  was  to  lessen  respect  for  law.1 

The  political  reaction  that  set  in  in  1829,  which  closed 
Lundy's  printing  establishment  in  Baltimore,  affected  the 
moral  tone  of  political  life  throughout  the  whole  country.  An 
effort  was  made  at  Cincinnati  in  the  spring  of  that  year  to 
secure  the  removal  of  the  free  people  of  color  from  the  State. 
It  was  alleged  to  be  in  furtherance  of  the  plans  of  the  Coloni 
zation  Society,  but  this  was  a  subterfuge  to  cover  some  deep 
design  and  give  it  an  appearance  of  philanthropy.  Whatever 
the  motive,  the  effect  was  to  invite  the  degraded  whites  to 
persecute  and  terrorize  the  defenceless  blacks,  who  numbered 
2200.  They  were  industrious  and  law-abiding,  many  of  them 
owned  their  homes,  and  some  were  doing  a  prosperous  busi- 

1  Report  of  Select  Committee  to  Ohio  Senate,  1838. 


16  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

ness.  The  law  of  1807,  which  had  been  a  dead  letter  for 
twenty-two  years,  was  now  invoked.  The  township  trustees 
issued  a  proclamation  that  every  colored  man  who  did  not 
fulfil  the  requirements  of  the  law  in  thirty  days  should  leave 
the  city.  There  was  in  support  of  this  action  that  sort  of  pub 
lic  sentiment  which  is  first  felt  in  times  of  violence.  Conserva 
tive  opinion  moves  with  the  deliberation  of  the  tortoise.  The 
colored  people  held  a  meeting  to  consider  what  should  be 
done.  They  petitioned  the  city  authorities  for  permission  to 
remain  sixty  days  longer,  and  forthwith  sent  a  committee  to 
Canada  to  see  what  provision  could  be  made  for  them  there. 
The  sixty  days  expired  before  they  returned.  Few  were  able 
to  give  security,  and  such  as  could  not  were  now  in  desperate 
straits,  as  the  mob  attempted  to  drive  them  out  of  the  city 
by  force,  and  the  city  authorities,  being  in  sympathy  with  the 
movement,  gave  them  no  succor.  Thus  driven  to  bay,  they 
barricaded  their  houses  and  defended  themselves  successfully. 
Some  of  their  assailants  were  killed,  and  after  three  nights  of 
terror  and  pillage  the  mob  retired. 

The  deputation  to  Canada  returned  with  a  favorable  answer. 
Sir  James  Colebrooke,  Governor  of  Upper  Canada,  gave  this 
reply  to  the  petition:  "Tell  the  republicans  on  your  side  the 
line,  that  we  royalists  do  not  know  men  by  their  color. 
Should  you  come  to  us  you  will  be  entitled  to  all  the  privi 
leges  of  the  rest  of  His  Majesty's  subjects."  All  who  were 
able,  supposed  to  be  over  one  thousand,  removed  to  Canada 
and  formed  the  Wilberforce  settlement.1  Those  who  remained 
behind  suffered  great  hardships.  The  artisans  combined 
against  them,  and  no  journeyman  could  find  employment.  In 
1830  the  President  of  the  Mechanical  Association  was  publicly 
tried  by  that  society,  for  assisting  a  colored  young  man  to 
learn  a  trade.  A  cabinet-maker,  who  had  bought  his  freedom 
in  Kentucky,  applied  in  vain  for  employment  in  all  the  shops 
in  Cincinnati.  In  this  extremity,  having  spent  his  last  cent, 
he  found  a  slaveholder  who  gave  him  employment  in  an  iron 
store  as  a  common  laborer,  and  after  two  years  procured  him 

1  Report  of  Committee  on  Condition  of  People  of  Color  in  Ohio. 


Anti-Slavery  Agitation  17 

work  as  a  carpenter.  Under  his  protection  he  became  a  mas 
ter  workman,  employing  at  times  six  or  eight  journeymen.1 
Although  they  paid  their  taxes,  the  schools  remained  closed  to 
them  for  some  time,  until  a  better  sentiment  prevailed.  The 
investigations  which  followed  under  the  influence  of  the  Ohio 
Anti-Slavery  Society  in  1836,  1837  and  1838  revealed  a  re 
markable  state  of  facts.  They  vindicated  the  good  character 
of  the  colored  people  in  the  State.  Many  had  certificates  from 
former  masters  and  good  citizens  of  the  South,  bearing  testi 
mony  to  their  worth  and  industry,  and  to  their  having  bought 
their  freedom  and  the  freedom  of  their  families.  Of  the  2600 
colored  people  in  Cincinnati  in  1835,  1129  had  been  in  slavery, 
and  of  this  number  476  had  purchased  themselves,  paying  the 
aggregate  sum  of  $215,522.04.  In  addition  to  buying  them 
selves,  they  bought  homes  or  put  money  in  trade.  In  the 
country  districts  the  same  conditions  were  found.  A  striking 
case  was  that  of  Godfrey  Brown  of  Greene  County,  who  had 
paid  $2350  for  himself  and  family,  owned  an  improved  farm 
of  300  acres  and  250  acres  of  unimproved  land.  He  had  bills 
of  sale  of  his  wife  and  seven  children.  He  had  earned  the 
money  at  shoemaking.  Not  many  white  laborers  could  show 
such  a  record. 

The  inertness  of  the  political  mind  when  prejudice  is  an 
element  in  any  proposition  of  reform  is  one  of  the  curious 
features  of  our  republican  system.  All  efforts  to  get  the 
obnoxious  black  laws  repealed  were  unavailing,  until  it  was 
brought  about  through  a  political  deal  involving  the  distribu 
tion  of  offices.  The  Illinois  country  had  similar  laws  which 
were  not  repealed  until  February  7,  i865.a  These,  added  to 
the  indenture  laws  of  Indiana  Territory,3  devised,  under  the 
administration  of  William  Henry  Harrison,  and  without  doubt 
by  his  procurement,  for  the  introduction  and  perpetuation  of 
slavery  in  the  country  west  of  Ohio,  gave  to  Illinois  as  com 
plete  a  slave  code  as  any  Southern  State  had.  Happily  public 

1  Report  of  Committee  on  Condition  of  PeQple  of  Color  in  Ohio. 
8  History  of  Illinois,   by  Davidson  and  Stuve,   p.   318. 
3  Originally  passed  in  1805  ;  re-enacted  in  1807. 


i8  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

sentiment,  kept  to  the  point  of  conscientious  endeavor  by  the 
emigrant  Friends  from  the  South,  grew  to  such  a  volume  as 
to  secure  the  repeal  of  the  indenture  law  by  the  Third  General 
Assembly  of  Indiana,  in  1810,  and  the  eastern  division  was 
thus  relieved  of  the  shame.1 

But  there  was  prevalent  in  the  North  a  disposition,  which 
was  not  markedly  changed  in  any  State  until  after  1838,  to 
withhold  from  the  people  of  color  every  inducement  to  well 
doing,  and  to  make  their  nominal  freedom  a  cruel  mockery  of 
real  freedom.2 

The  prevailing  prejudice  against  the  free  blacks  was  not  in 
consistent  with  the  feeling  of  repugnance  to  slavery,  but  the 
absence  in  the  breasts  of  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the  North 
of  pity  for  the  hard  conditions  of  life  imposed  upon  a  captive 
race,  the  savage  joy  manifested  by  the  baser  sort  over  their 
sufferings,  were  a  sad  commentary  on  the  pretentious  claims 
of  a  Christian  people.  To  their  everlasting  honor,  pity  and 
sympathy  came  from  those  born  into  the  slaveholding  class. 
They  strove  to  find  some  way  to  mitigate  the  evils  the  system 
entailed ;  and  to  plan  the  ultimate  extinction  of  slavery  with 
out  the  destruction  of  social  order,  and  the  bringing  in  of 
other  and  perhaps  greater  evils.  They  believed  the  attainment 
of  the  latter  object  possible  only  by  a  complete  separation  of 
the  races.  The  reasons  are  obvious.  The  experience  since 
war  made  emancipation  universal,  albeit  unattended  by  all  the 
evils  then  believed  inevitable,  has  served  to  give  us  a  clearer 
insight  into  the  conservative  opinions  prevailing  in  the  times 
under  review.  Colonization  was  advocated  as  the  true  policy, 

1  Indiana :  A  Redemption  from  Slavery.     The  author,   J.    P.    Dunn,  Jr.,   has 
given  an  interesting  resume"  of  the  legislative  and  political  intrigues  of  the  day. 
There  were  three  distinct  features  of  the  repeal  act.     The  first  was  the  uncon 
ditional  repeal  of  the  indenture  law  of  1807.      The  second  was  a  provision  to 
prevent   kidnapping,  the  penalties  for  which  offence  were  a  fine  of  $1000,  lia 
bility  for  damages  to  the  party  aggrieved,   and  disqualification  for  holding  any 
office  of  trust  or  profit.       The    third  repealed   so   much    of   the  act  concerning 
servants  as  allowed  the  importation  of  indentured  negroes  from  other  States  or 
territories. 

2  Proceedings  American  Colonization  Society ',  1834. 


Anti-Slavery  Agitation  19 

as  calculated  to  promote  emancipation,  secure  the  support  of 
conscientious  slaveholders,  and  place  the  freedmen  where  they 
could  advance  in  civilization  without  the  antagonisms  arising 
from  the  domination  of  an  imperious  race.  This  had  been 
proposed  at  an  early  day  by  Mr.  Jefferson  and  other  Virgin 
ians,  and  soon  after  the  organization  of  the  American  Col 
onization  Society  in  1816,  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  by 
resolution  solicited  the  aid  of  the  national  government  in  the 
execution  of  a  plan  for  the  colonization  of  the  free  people  of 
color,  with  their  consent.  The  Legislatures  of  Kentucky, 
Tennessee,  Ohio,  Connecticut  and  other  States  took  similar 
action.  The  founding  of  the  colony  of  Liberia  was  the  out 
growth  of  this  movement.  The  year  after  the  organization  of 
the  society,  Charles  Osborne  objected  to  it  that  it  would  but 
serve  to  strengthen  slavery,  and  this  view  was  adopted  later 
by  the  extreme  Abolitionists  and  by  the  different  anti-slavery 
societies,  which  denounced  colonization  as  "unrighteous, 
cruel  and  impracticable."  Why  the  emigration  of  blacks  of 
their  own  free  will  was  any  more  unrighteous  and  cruel  than 
the  emigration  of  the  Puritans  to  the  bleak  coast  of  New  Eng 
land,  or  of  the  mass  of  colonists  to  Virginia,  many  of  whom 
were  under  duress,  it  is  difficult  for  an  unprejudiced  mind  to 
understand.  But  the  Abolitionists  in  making  war  upon  a  sys 
tem  viewed  the  victims  of  it  in  an  exaggerated  light.  Having 
proclaimed  slaveholding  to  be  a  malum  in  se,  in  the  execution 
of  judgment  they  showed  no  mercy  to  those  concerned  in  it, 
and  condemned  as  evil  everything  approved  or  tolerated  by 
them.  That  persons  interested  in  colonization  hoped  some 
advantage  from  it,  is  doubtless  true,  but  it  is  also  true  that  the 
slavery  propagandists  denounced  it  and  those  connected  with 

1  Gerrit  Smith  in  1834  remarked  on  the  growing  indifference  of  certain 
classes  to  the  American  Colonization  Society.  The  American  Anti-Slavery 
Society,  said  he,  "  has  wronged  us  greatly,  I  admit.  It  has,  unhappily,  thought 
the  destruction  of  our  society  indispensable  to  the  establishment  of  its  own." — 
Proceedings  American  Colonization  Society^  1834,  p.  vi.  Because  of  a  tenderness  for 
the  institution  shown  by  some  members  of  the  Colonization  Society,  Mr.  Smith 
withdrew  from  it  and  joined  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society — an  irreparable 
loss  to  the  former. 


20  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

it.  Many  telling  facts  in  condemnation  of  human  bondage  as 
existing  in  the  States  were  supplied  by  the  American  Coloniza 
tion  Society  and  its  auxiliary  societies,  which  exerted  a  greater 
influence,  perhaps,  than  those  supplied  by  the  anti-slavery  so 
cieties,  because  derived  from  the  experience  of  conscientious 
slaveholders  unaccompanied  by  passion  and  exaggeration. 
The  society  "took  for  granted  the  fact  that  slavery  was  a  great 
moral  and  political  evil,  and  cherished  the  hope,  and  the  belief 
also,  that  the  successful  prosecution  of  its  object  would  offer 
powerful  motives  and  exert  a  persuasive  influence  in  favor  of 
emancipation.  And  it  is  from  this  indirect  effect  of  the  so 
ciety  that  the  largest  advantage  is  to  result  to  America.  It 
has  shown  us  how  we  may  be  relieved  of  the  curse  of  slav 
ery,  in  a  manner  cheap,  certain  and  advantageous  to  both 
parties."1  And  this  undoubtedly  expresses  the  motive  and 
expectation  of  the  founders  of  the  Colonization  Society. 

The  increase  in  the  colored  population  in  the  States  north  of 
the  Potomac  and  the  Ohio  was  a  constant  menace  to  the  good 
neighborhood  of  the  border  States.  The  cupidity  of  evil  men 
made  them  kidnappers,  and  hundreds  of  unfortunate  victims 
were  forcibly  carried  beyond  the  reach  of  friends  and  sold  into 
bondage  from  which  they  were  seldom  redeemed.  On  the 
other  hand,  assistance  was  occasionally  rendered  to  escaping 
slaves,  and  owners  met  with  many  difficulties  in  reclaiming 
their  property.  Dislike  of  the  institution  was  widely  prevalent 
in  the  border  free  States,  as  this  recital  has  already  shown.  It 
did  not  grow  less  as  the  claims  of  the  institution  became  more 
importunate.  The  first  requisition  for  the  arrest  and  return  of 
a  slave  domiciled  within  the  limits  of  Ohio  was  refused  by  the 
Governor  at  the  request  of  prominent  citizens  of  Marietta. 
This  was  in  i8o8.2 

In  1817  the  Legislature  of  Kentucky  made  the  difficulty  ex 
perienced  by  the  citizens  of  that  State  in  recovering  fugitive 
slaves  the  subject  of  resolutions  which  were  communicated  to 

1  Proceedings,   1831. 

2  "  The  First  Slave  Case  of  Record  in  Ohio,"  Proceedings  of  the  American  His 
torical  Association,  1893. 


Anti-Slavery  Agitation  21 

the  Ohio  executive.  In  acknowledging  their  receipt  the  latter 
dwelt  on  the  importance  of  the  two  States  maintaining  the 
most  amicable  relations,  and  said  as  to  the  complaint: 

I  can  assure  you,  Sir,  that  so  far  as  I  am  informed  there  is  neither 
a  defect  in  the  laws  or  want  of  energy  on  the  part  of  those  who 
execute  them.  That  a  universal  prejudice  against  the  principle  of 
slavery  does  exist  and  is  cherished  is  to  be  expected,  and  that  a 
desire  as  universal  to  get  rid  of  every  species  of  negro  population 
exists,  is,  in  my  opinion,  as  certain.  The  fugitive  act  is  fully 
executed.  You  know,  Sir,  that  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  cannot  be 
denied,  and  it  but  too  often  happens  that  the  proofs  of  the  right  of 
property  are  defective;  under  such  circumstances  the  judge  must 
act  according  to  the  facts.1 

The  difficulty  was  more  fully  set  forth  in  an  interesting 
kidnapping  case.  In  1819  a  free  girl  named  Venus,  nine 
years  of  age,  was  kidnapped  by  William  Bell  and  taken  to 
Fleming  County,  Kentucky,  and  sold.  The  requisition  of 
the  Governor  of  Ohio  for  the  arrest  of  Bell  was  promptly 
acted  on  by  the  Governor  of  Kentucky,  who  caused  the  mis 
creant  to  be  arrested,  and  lodged  in  jail  and  finally  delivered 
to  the  agent  of  the  former  State.  In  acknowledgment  Gov 
ernor  Brown  of  Ohio  wrote  as  follows: 

I  request  you  to  receive  the  expression  of  the  high  satisfaction 
and  gratification  I  feel  at  the  ready  and  energetic  manner  in  which 
you  seem  determined  to  bring  to  justice  an  offender  of  this  descrip 
tion.  While  enormities  like  the  one  complained  of  are  committed, 
the  citizens  of  Kentucky  should  not  complain  that  those  of  Ohio 
should  feel  an  interest  in  requiring  proof  of  ownership  however  in 
convenient  to  the  proprietors,  before  they  consent  to  the  removal  of 
negroes  against  their  will.  The  want  of  such  evidence  and  the 
violence  of  attempting  to  remove  them  without  the  warrant  of  the 
constituted  authority,  I  suspect,  have  been  the  chief  causes  of 
the  difficulty  which  actual  proprietors  have  experienced  in  reclaiming 
their  slaves  in  Ohio;  and  the  villainy  of  unprincipled  kidnappers 

1  Letter  of  Gov.  Thomas  Worthington,  Oct.  23,  1817.     MS. 


22  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

has  aroused  the  people  in  some  districts  into  a  vigilance  which  I 
hope  you  will  think  laudable,  to  guard  against  the  perpetrators  of 
so  dark  a  crime.1 

It  was  such  experiences  arising  from  the  practical  adminis 
tration  of  the  slavery  system  in  a  long  series  of  years,  and  de 
nial  of  the  right  of  petition,  violence  of  mobs,  and  attempted 
subversion  of  the  liberty  of  the  press,  rather  than  the  organ 
ized  effort  of  anti-slavery  societies,  that  influenced  public 
opinion  in  the  North  and  prepared  the  way  for  the  success  of  a 
party  pledged  to  the  restriction  of  slavery.  The  overshadow 
ing  personality  of  Charles  Hammond  in  Ohio,  at  the  bar,  in 
legislative  councils  and  in  the  press,  was  a  force  constant  in 
opposition  for  over  twenty-five  years,  and  did  not  cease  with 
his  death  in  1840. 

In  December,  1819,  he  prepared  a  report  on  the  evils  of 
slavery  and  the  power  of  Congress  to  exclude  it  from  the  ter 
ritories  which  was  the  basis  of  official  action  of  the  Legislature 
early  in  January  following,  requesting  Senators  and  Represen 
tatives  in  Congress,  "to  use  their  utmost  exertions  to  prevent 
the  admission  or  introduction  of  slavery  into  any  of  the  terri 
tories  of  the  United  States,  or  any  new  State  that  may  here 
after  be  admitted  into  the  Union."  A  reason  why  the  free 
States  should  demand  this  was  stated  by  Mr.  Webster  with 
much  force,  in  the  memorial  to  Congress  of  December  15, 
1819,  which  expressed  the  opinion  of  Massachusetts.3  The 
permission  of  slavery  in  a  new  State  necessarily  drew  after  it 
an  extension  of  that  inequality  of  representation  which  ex 
isted  in  regard  to  the  original  States.  As  between  those 
States  the  representation  rested  on  compact  and  plighted 
faith,  which  ought  not  to  be  violated.  But  with  a  new  State 

1  Gov.  Ethan  Allen  Brown  to  Gov.  Gabriel  Slaughter,   Feb.  14,  1820.     Brown 
Papers.     MS. 

2  Associated  with  Mr.  Webster  on  the  committee  which  was  appointed  at  a  meet 
ing  in  Boston,  were  George  Blake,  Josiah  Quincy,   James  T.  Austin  and   John 
Gallison.     The  memorial  said  that  the  terms  of  the  Constitution  and  the  practice  of 
the  government  under  it,  justified  the  conclusion  that  Congress  might  make  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  a  condition  of  admission  of  any  new  State  into  the  Union. 


* 

Anti-Slavery  Agitation  23 

there  was  no  compact,  no  faith  plighted ;  then  where  was  the 
reason  that  she  should  enter  the  Union  with  more  than  an 
equal  share  of  political  importance  and  political  power?  Al 
ready  the  ratio  of  representation  established  by  the  Constitu 
tion  had  given  to  the  States  holding  slaves  twenty  members 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  more  than  they  would  have 
been  entitled  to,  except  under  the  particular  provision  of  the 
Constitution.  New  slave  States  would  increase  this  unjust 
power. 

Several  other  Northern  States  adopted  memorials  in  recog 
nition  of  public  sentiment  as  to  the  duty  of  Congress  to  pro 
hibit  slavery  in  new  States.  The  resolutions  of  the  Legislature 
of  Pennsylvania  were  adopted  by  a  unanimous  vote.  To  fail 
to  restrict  the  system  in  the  fertile  regions  of  the  West,  the 
resolutions  declared,  "renders  all  schemes  for  obliterating  this 
foul  blot  upon  the  American  character  useless  and  unavail 
ing."  But  despite  the  efforts  of  the  Northern  States  to  pro 
hibit  slavery  in  Missouri,  admission  was  secured  under  a 
compromise  looking  to  future  restriction  in  territory  north  of 

36°  30'. 

Under  the  lead  of  Hammond,  the  Legislature  of  Ohio  in  1824 
suggested  action  to  promote  the  gradual  extinction  of  slavery, 
in  which  the  cooperation  of  all  the  States  and  of  the  Congress 
was  invited.  These  resolutions  are  an  important  part  of  the 
history  of  the  slavery  contest,  for  in  them  is  expressed  the 
conservative  opinion  of  the  North  of  the  expediency  and 
practical  method  of  getting  rid  of  the  evil: 

Resolved  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  That  the 
consideration  of  a  system  providing  for  the  gradual  emancipation  of 
the  people  of  color  held  in  servitude  in  the  United  States,  be  recom 
mended  to  the  Legislatures  of  the  several  States  of  the  American 
Union  and  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 

Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  General  Assembly,  a  system 
of  foreign  colonization,  with  correspondent  measures,  might  be 
adopted,  that  would,  in  due  time,  effect  the  entire  emancipation  of 
the  slaves  in  our  country,  without  any  violation  of  the  national 
compact,  or  infringement  of  the  rights  of  individuals  ;  by  the 


24  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

passage  of  a  law  by  the  general  government  (with  the  consent  of  the 
slaveholding  States)  which  should  provide,  that  all  children  of  per 
sons  now  held  in  slavery,  born  after  the  passage  of  such  law,  should 
be  free  at  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  (being  supported  during  their 
minority  by  the  persons  claiming  the  service  of  their  parents,)  pro 
viding  they  then  consent  to  be  transported  to  the  intended  place  of 
colonization ; — also 

Resolved,  That  it  is  expedient  that  such  a  system  should  be  pre 
dicated  upon  the  principle,  that  the  evil  of  slavery  is  a  national  one 
and  that  the  people  and  States  of  the  Union  ought  mutually  to 
participate  in  the  duties  and  burthens  of  removing  it.1 

If  the  evil  of  slavery  was  a  national  one,  as  declared  by 
Ohio,  for  the  removal  of  which  she  was  ready  to  pay  her  share 
of  cost,  the  right  to  eradicate  it  was  a  local  one,  in  the  view 
of  Georgia.  The  Legislature  of  that  State  disapproved  of  the 
proposition  of  Ohio  for  the  abolition  of  slavery.  The  report 
of  the  committee  which  was  adopted  declared : 

That  the  constitutional  guarantee  made  to  the  slave  States  holding 
slaves  is  not  less  sacred  than  the  obligation  imposed  by  the  Consti 
tution  and  laws  for  the  protection  of  private  property.  Such  States 
owe  it  to  themselves  to  preserve  unimpaired  those  rights,  since  the 
causes  which  extracted  the  constitutional  concessions  on  this  subject 
continue  to  exist  in  all  their  force.  Your  committee  are  therefore 
constrained  to  view  the  resolution  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  as  calculated 
to  infringe  the  rights  of  the  State  of  Georgia  in  common  with  other 
States  similarly  situated  in  this  particular,  and  as  indelicate  in  those 
from  whom  it  emanates.  If  "  the  evil  of  slavery  be  considered  a 
national  one,"  your  committee  take  leave  to  refer  the  Legislature  of 
Ohio  to  the  situation  of  the  country  as  it  was  originally  settled  in 
the  South  by  our  ancestors,  and  to  those  circumstances  by  the  force 
of  which  slavery  in  America  commenced  its  existence. 

While  your  committee  contemplate  with  no  ordinary  emotions  the 
ameliorated  condition  of  the  slave  in  the  Southern  country,  they 

1  Archives  of  the  State  of  Ohio.  Similar  action  was  taken  by  the  Legislatures 
of  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey.  The  former  State  in  1828  also  recommended 
the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  New  York  made  the  same 
recommendation  the  following  year. 


Anti-Slavery  Agitation  25 

view  with  regret  this  unnecessary  interference  on  the  part  of  a  sister 
State,  so  well  calculated  to  excite  the  anticipations  and  hopes  of  the 
slave,  and  to  impel  him  to  those  acts  which,  instead  of  bettering  his 
condition,  must  augment  his  misfortunes.  Your  committee,  there 
fore,  consider  the  resolution  as  violative  of  the  true  dictates  of 
humanity;  and  this  idea  is  supported  by  a  contrast  of  the  slave 
population  of  the  South  with  the  wretched  and  miserable  condition 
of  the  free  people  of  color  who  crowd  the  houses  of  punishment 
and  correction  in  some  of  our  sister  States.  If  in  the  South  they 
do  not  revel  in  liberty,  they  are  at  least  supplied  witfa  the  necessary 
wants  of  life.  Georgia  claims  the  right  with  her  Southern  sisters, 
whose  situation  in  this  regard  is  similar,  of  moving  the  question 
when  an  enlarged  system  of  benevolent  and  philanthropic  exertions, 
in  consistency  with  her  rights  and  interests,  shall  render  it  practi 
cable.1 

The  great  Missouri  contest  was  followed  by  one  of  no  less 
importance  in  the  State  of  Illinois.  The  dominant  party  of 
that  young  State  was  pro-slavery,  as  it  continued  to  be  for 
over  thirty-six  years,  and  its  leaders  sought  to  change  the  con 
stitution  of  1818,  which  conformed  to  the  Ordinance  of  1787, 
so  as  to  engraft  slavery  upon  the  domestic  institutions  of  the 
State.  A  majority  of  the  leaders  in  this  scheme  were  emi 
grants  from  the  free  States  who  were  actuated  by  the  base 
motive  of  avarice.  They  believed  that  if  there  was  an  abun 
dant  supply  of  cheap  labor,  the  lands  which  they  owned  would 
rapidly  advance  in  price,  and  that  they  would  be  able  to  take 
advantage  of  an  active  market.  For  this  they  were  willing  to 
mortgage  the  future  welfare  of  society,  and  bring  the  Union 
into  immediate  jeopardy.  There  also  entered  into  the  action 
of  this  party  a  desire  to  be  revenged  upon  the  Governor  of 
the  State  for  having  had  the  temerity  to  recommend  in  his 
message  in  1822  the  abolition  of  that  slavery  existing  by  vir 
tue  of  the  French  rights^  and  of  the  nefarious  system  of  in 
denture.  They  accepted  the  recommendations  of  the  Governor 
as  a  challenge,  and  they  brought  into  play  the  cupidity  of  the 
landowners,  the  tricks  of  base  politicians  and  the  violence  of 

1  Archives  of  Georgia  and  Ohio. 


26  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

desperate  men.  Lacking  one  vote  in  the  House,  they  un 
seated  a  member  who  had  been  duly  elected  and  whom  they 
had  voted  in  nine  weeks  previously,  and  seated  his  competitor 
who  failed  of  election.  By  such  means  they  secured  two- 
thirds  of  the  two  Houses  and  adopted  a  resolution  submitting 
to  a  vote  of  the  people  the  question  of  calling  a  new  constitu 
tional  convention. 

Edward  Coles,  who  had  been  elected  Governor  through  a 
factional  division  in  the  dominant  party,  and  thus  became  the 
instrument  for  good  under  Providence,  was  a  native  of  Vir 
ginia  and  had  served  as  private  secretary  to  President  Madison. 
He  removed  to  Illinois  to  escape  from  slavery  and  to  enjoy 
the  opportunity  offered  by  different  social  conditions.  He 
was  a  man  of  culture,  of  even  temper,  of  high  character  and 
admirably  qualified  to  be  the  leader  of  the  great  free  State 
cause.  Associated  with  him  were  Morris  Birkbeck,  founder  of 
an  English  colony,  and  most  of  the  ministers  of  the  State,  of 
whom  John  M.  Peck,  a  Baptist  minister  from  Connecticut, 
was  the  most  conspicuous.  When  the  issue  was  made  up 
by  the  legislative  majority,  Governor  Coles  drew  up  an  able 
and  dignified  address  to  the  people  of  the  State,  setting  forth 
the  danger  from  a  new  convention.  This  address  was  signed 
by  eighteen  members  of  the  Legislature  who  had  voted  against 
the  proposition.  Ten  of  those  who  signed  the  free  State 
paper  were  emigrants  from  slave  States,  a  fact  worth  noting 
in  connection  with  what  had  already  been  accomplished  in 
Indiana  and  Ohio  by  Southern  men.1 

The  contest  which  now  followed  lasted  for  eighteen  months, 
and  was  characterized  by  great  bitterness,  violence  to  the 
degree  of  personal  encounters  and  destruction  of  property. 
Great  interest  was  excited  by  it  in  all  parts  of  the  country. 
"Is  it  possible,"  asked  William  H.  Crawford,  of  Georgia,  then 

1  Henry  Wilson,  in  his  History  of  the  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power  in 
America,  vol.  ii.,  p.  167,  credits  the  anti-slavery  sentiment  in  Ohio  to  the  New 
England  immigrants.  This  confounds  the  political  action  of  the  parties  with  the 
religious  movement  that  preceded,  which  was  actively  promoted  by  the  Southern 
element. 


Anti-Slavery  Agitation  27 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  a  private  letter,  "that  your  con 
vention  is  intended  to  introduce  slavery  into  the  State?  I 
acknowledge  if  I  were  a  citizen  I  should  oppose  it  with  great 
earnestness;  where  it  has  ever  been  introduced  it  is  extremely 
difficult  to  get  rid  of,  and  ought  to  be  treated  with  great  deli 
cacy.  "  Governor  Coles  threw  his  whole  soul  into  the  war. 
He  purchased  a  newspaper  and  circulated  pamphlets,  setting 
forth  the  immoral  tendencies  of  slavery  and  the  unwisdom  of 
it  from  an  economic  point  of  view.  These  pamphlets  were 
prepared  in  Philadelphia  under  the  direction  of  that  philan 
thropic  Friend,  Roberts  Vaux,  and  shipped  to  St.  Louis, 
whence  Governor  Coles  had  them  distributed  in  the  mails. 
The  result  of  this  campaign  of  education  was  shown  when  the 
votes  were  cast  on  the  first  Monday  of  August,  1824.  The 
anti-convention  party  got  a  majority  of  1872  votes  out  of  a 
total  of  11,772.  Thus  was  Illinois  preserved  to  freedom. 

The  feeling  of  revenge  followed  Governor  Coles  after  his  tri 
umph.  A  suit  was  instituted  at  Edwardsville  against  him  for 
the  recovery  of  the  sum  of  $200  for  each  negro  emancipated 
by  him  and  brought  to  the  State.  He  had  not  only  emanci 
pated  his  slaves  and  paid  the  expenses  of  their  emigration,  but 
had  given  to  all  over  twenty-four  years  old  one  hundred  and 
sixty  acres  of  land  each.  They  were  industrious,  worthy  men 
and  taxpayers,  but  as  there  had  been  a  technical  violation  of 
the  law  of  1819  requiring  a  bond  conditioned  on  their  not  be 
coming  a  public  charge,  here  was  an  opportunity  to  punish  the 
Governor  for  having  thwarted  the  pro-slavery  scheme.  The 
court  ruled  out  his  testimony  and  directed  a  conviction. 
The  case  was  appealed  and  the  Supreme  Court  reversed  the 
decision  of  the  court  below. 

Utterances  of  Southern  politicians  on  the  hustings  in  the 
campaign  of  1824,  portending  further  acquisitions  of  territory 
for  the  purpose  of  increasing  the  slave  power,1  created  uneasi 
ness  in  the  North  and  invited  a  discussion  of  the  system  of 
slavery  which  anticipated  the  arguments  of  a  later  day.  "We 
cannot  help  making  the  inquiry,"  said  the  Cincinnati  Gazette, 

1  Dr.  Floyd's  speech  in  the  Virginia  papers.     Also  in  Cincinnati  Gazette. 


28  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

"whether  men  who  wish  an  extension  of  slavery  for  political 
purposes  are  not  advocating  measures  which  lead  not  only  to 
moral  degradation  and  misery  but  to  great  ultimate  national 
calamities.  To  urge  the  furtJier  extension  of  involuntary  servi 
tude  appears  not  only  morally  wrong  but  politically  dangerous." 
The  acrimony  displayed  in  the  Panama  Mission  debate  in  the 
national  Senate  rendered  a  continuation  of  the  discussion  in 
the  free  press  inevitable.  This  developed  great  sensitiveness 
of  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  Southerners.  Charity  interposed 
urging  mutual  forbearance.  Dr.  William  Ellery  Channing 
would  "first  let  the  Southern  States  see  that  we  are  their 
friends  in  this  affair;  that  we  sympathize  with  them,  and,  from 
principles  of  patriotism  and  philanthropy,  are  willing  to  share 
the  toil  and  expense  of  abolishing  slavery."  He  deprecated 
everything  calculated  to  exasperate  sectional  animosities.8 
But  the  never  ending  resurgence  of  the  claims  of  the  slave 
power  on  the  general  government  for  compensation,  for  pro 
tection,  forbade  silence  on  the  part  of  the  true  representatives 
of  Northern  interests,  although  they  did  command  the  sup 
port  of  those  who  were  recreant  through  fealty  to  party. 
"Saturday  we  had  the  Wilde  bill  up,"  wrote  John  C.  Wright 
to  Hammond,  "a  bill  to  import  negroes.  Taylor  and  I  op 
posed,  but  were  beaten  by  the  New  York  and  Pennsylvania 
Swiss  corps  with  our  Doughfaces,  and  the  Journal  and  Intelli 
gencer  are  so  delicate  on  the  subject  of  negroes  that  the  de 
bate  is  not  even  given.  This  ought  to  be  handled.  It  is  the 
Ramirez  case. ' '  3 

1  Charles  Hammond  and  his  Relations  to  Henry  Clay,  etc.,  p.  34.     See  Liberty 
Hall,  1824-6. 

2  Webster's  Works,  vol.  v.,  p.  367. 

3  Hammond  Correspondence,  28  April,  1828.     MS.     The  bill  before  Congress, 
which  finally  became  a  law,  was  for  the  cancelling  of  a  bond  given  by  Mr.  Wilde, 
of  Georgia,    to  transport  thirty-nine  Africans   beyond  the  limits  of   the   United 
States.     These  Africans  by  decree  of  the  U.  S.  Supreme  Court  in  the  Antelope 
case  (10  Wheaton),  had  been  declared  to  belong  to  Spanish  claimants.     During 
the  seven  years  consumed  in  litigation,  some  of   the  Africans  married  Georgia 
negroes,  and  the  act  of  Mr.  Wilde  in  purchasing  them  was,  doubtless,  a  benevolent 
one.     Unless  the  bonds  were  cancelled  the  Africans  would  have  to  be  transported. 
He  offered  them  to  the  Colonization  Society  for  transportation   to    Liberia,  on 


Anti-Slavery  Agitation  29 

The  case  to  which  the  Wilde  bill  was  the  sequel  is  in  some 
respects  the  most  remarkable  in  the  history  of  American 
slavery.  It  occupied  the  attention  of  the  courts  for  nearly 
eight  years,  involving  the  important  questions  of  privateering, 
piracy  and  personal  liberty,  and  thus  it  revealed  the  embar 
rassments  arising  from  two  conflicting  systems  under  one 
government. 

A  privateer  called  the  Columbia,  sailing  under  a  Venezuelan 
commission,  entered  the  port  of  Baltimore  in  December,  1819; 
clandestinely  shipped  a  crew  of  thirty  or  forty  men  ;  proceeded 
to  sea,  and,  hoisting  the  Montevidean  flag  and  assuming  the 
name  of  the  Arraganta,  prosecuted  a  voyage  along  the  coast 
of  Africa,  her  officers  and  crew  being  citizens  of  the  United 
States.  She  obtained  a  cargo  of  Africans  by  capture  from 
vessels  of  different  nationalities,  and  made  prize  of  a  Spanish 
vessel  called  the  Antelope,  which  had  on  board  nearly  a  hun 
dred  Africans.  The  two  vessels  then  sailed  in  company  to 
the  coast  of  Brazil,  where  the  Arraganta  was  wrecked  and  her 
master,  Metcalf,  and  a  great  part  of  her  crew  were  made 
prisoners;  the  rest  of  the  crew,  with  the  armament  of  the 
Arraganta,  were  transferred  to  the  Antelope,  which,  thus 
armed,  assumed  the  name  of  the  General  Ramirez,  under  the 
command  of  John  Smith,  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  On 
board  this  vessel  were  all  the  Africans  that  had  been  captured 
by  the  privateer  in  her  voyage.  Smith  steered  for  the  coast 
of  Florida,  for  a  market,  but  had  the  misfortune  to  be  cap 
tured  by  Captain  John  Jackson,  of  the  revenue  cutter  Dallas, 
who  carried  his  prize  into  the  port  of  Savannah  for  adjudica 
tion.  He  filed  a  claim  in  the  United  States  District  Court  for 
salvage ;  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese  vice-consuls  libelled  the 
vessel  and  negroes,  who  were  claimed  by  John  Smith,  as  cap 
tured  jure  belli;  while  the  United  States  claimed  them  as 
having  been  transported  from  foreign  parts  by  American 

refunding  to  him  the  money  he  had  paid  out,  but  the  society  had  no  funds.  During 
the  debate  in  the  House  Mr.  Taylor  of  New  York  moved  to  appropriate  $11,700 
to  reimburse  Mr.  Wilde,  and  consign  the  Africans  to  the  Colonization  Society. 
Lost  by  a  vote  of  51  to  103. — Debates  of  Congress,  vol.  x.,  p.  125. 


30  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

citizens  in  contravention  of  our  laws,  and  as  entitled  to  their 
freedom  by  those  laws  and  by  the  law  of  nations.  Under  the 
act  of  1 5th  May,  1820,  Smith  was  a  pirate  and  liable  to  prose 
cution  and  punishment.  He  was  not  prosecuted,  and  was  not 
otherwise  punished  than  to  have  his  claim  disallowed. 

As  the  judgments  of  the  District  and  Circuit  Courts  differed 
only  in  details,  we  may  pass  directly  to  the  finding  of  the  latter 
court.  The  claim  of  the  Spanish  vice-consul  to  the  vessel  was 
allowed,  on  the  ground  that  she  had  not  violated  the  laws  for 
the  suppression  of  the  slave  trade,  and  hence  was  not  forfeit 
to  the  United  States.  She  was  exempted  from  forfeiture  be 
cause  before  the  commission  of  this  smuggling  piracy  she  had 
been  taken  by  another  act  of  piracy  from  certain  slave  traders. 
Captain  Jackson  was  allowed  salvage  to  the  amount  of  fifty 
dollars  a  head  for  each  African  doomed  to  slavery,  and  twenty- 
five  dollars  for  each  one  declared  to  be  entitled  to  freedom. 
The  scandalous  claim  set  up  by  Jackson  and  Smith,  that  only 
seven  of  these  survived,  the  court  refused  to  be  a  party  to. 
It  was  decreed  that  twenty-five?  to  be  selected  by  lot,  should 
be  turned  over  to  the  United  States  under  the  law,  and  that 
the  residue  of  the  negroes  should  be  divided  between  the 
Spanish  and  Portuguese  claimants  in  the  ratio  of  one  hundred 
and  sixty-six  to  the  former  and  one  hundred  and  thirty  to  the 
latter. 

The  case  went  to  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  on  ap 
peal  in  February,  1822,  and  in  1825  the  judgment  of  the  court 
was  rendered  by  Chief  Justice  Marshall.  It  reversed  the  lot 
tery  decree  of  the  Circuit  Court,  cancelled  the  allotment  of 
one  hundred  and  thirty  to  the  Portuguese  vice-consul,  and 
awarded  to  this  number  the  blessing  of  liberty ;  it  reduced  the 
number  to  be  surrendered  to  the  Spanish  claimant  to  thirty- 
nine,  and  these  were  consigned  to  slavery  because  at  the  time 
of  their  capture  Spain  had  not  pronounced  against  the  slave 
trade ;  it  also  surrendered  to  the  Spanish  claimant  the  Antelope, 
and  confirmed  the  allowance  of  salvage  to  Captain  Jackson. 

The  court  held  that  while  the  African  slave  trade  was  con 
trary  to  the  law  of  nature,  it  was  not  prohibited  by  the  positive 


Anti-Slavery  Agitation  31 

law  of  nations — that  is,  it  might  lawfully  be  carried  on  by  the 
subjects  of  those  nations  which  had  not  prohibited  it  by  munici 
pal  acts  or  treaties,  thus  overruling  the  opinion  of  Judge  Story 
in  the  case  of  La  Jeune  Eugenie.1  On  another  point  of  grave 
importance,  the  judgment  affirmed  the  legality  of  the  capture 
of  the  Antelope  by  the  Dallas,  and  added  this  highly  interest 
ing  statement:  "And  whether  in  such  a  case  restitution  ought 
to  be  decreed  at  all  was  a  question  on  which  the  court  was 
equally  divided."  Hence  the  rule  left  in  force  so  much  of 
the  judgment  of  the  Circuit  Court  as  gave  to  the  Spanish 
claimants  the  vessel  and  thirty-nine  of  the  Africans.  The  rest 
were  restored  to  liberty  to  be  transported,  by  order  of  the 
President,  beyond  the  limits  of  the  United  States.  While  a 
divided  court  settled  no  principle,  the  judgment  was  favorable 
to  freedom.3 

To  the  United  States  belongs  the  credit  of  first  declaring 
the  slave  trade  piracy.  Judges  of  the  Circuit  Courts,  both  in 
the  South  and  the  North,  from  time  to  time,  charged  grand 
juries  to  be  vigilant  in  searching  for  offences  under  the  laws 
providing  for  its  suppression.  In  vigor  of  condemnation  there 
was  no  difference  on  account  of  sectional  lines.  The  horrors 
of  the  middle  passage  touched  the  hearts  of  all  judges  and 
made  all  eloquent.  The  united  action  of  the  great  nations, 
making  the  trade  unlawful,  had  increased  the  sufferings  of  the 
victims  torn  from  their  homes.  Concealment  was  practised  to 
avoid  arrest,  and  they  were  confined  in  narrow  spaces  below 
the  deck  and  subjected  to  every  conceivable  torture.  Here 
are  two  examples  by  way  of  illustration.  In  a  captured 
slaver  were  found  seventeen  men  shackled  together  in  pairs 
by  the  legs,  and  twenty  boys,  confined  in  a  space  measuring 
eighteen  feet  in  length,  seven  feet  eight  inches  in  breadth,  and 
one  foot  eight  inches  in  height !  When  released  the  men  could 
not  stand.  In  another  compartment  having  less  cubic  capacity 
were  thirty-four  females. 

1  2  Mason's  R.,  409.  Judge  Story  said  in  1842  :  "I  always  thought  I  was  right, 
and  still  think  so." 

9  10,  ii  and  12  Wheaton. 


32  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

When  the  French  ship  Le  Rodeur  arrived  at  Guadeloupe, 
thirty-nine  negroes  suffering  from  ophthalmia  were  thrown 
into  the  sea  as  being  useless.  Sometimes  the  villains  engaged 
in  this  traffic  as  well  as  their  victims  were  swallowed  up  by  the 
sea.  This  happened  to  the  officers  and  crew  of  the  Spanish 
ship  St.  Leon,  who,  infected  by  the  negroes,  became  totally 
blind.  Unable  to  navigate  their  vessel,  they  spoke  another 
slaver  for  assistance,  which  could  not  be  rendered,  and  were 
never  afterward  heard  of.1 

When  pursued  and  capture  became  imminent,  the  master  of 
the  slaver  would  often  throw  his  manacled  victims  into  the 
sea,  so  that  when  boarded  there  would  be  no  evidence  to 
justify  seizure,  and  he  could  return  to  the  coast  of  Africa  for 
another  chance.  Another  method  was  to  stow  the  Africans 
in  water  casks  which  were  consigned  to  the  deep  when  the 
chase  became  hot.a  When  prevented  from  destroying  the  evi 
dence  of  his  crimes,  the  master  yielded  sullenly  to  his  fate. 
What  sights  then  confronted  the  captors !  On  the  deck  and 
in  the  loathsome  hold  were  to  be  seen  the  living  chained  to 
the  dead — the  putrid  carcass  remaining  to  mock  the  survivor 
with  a  spectacle  that  to  him  presented  no  terrors — to  mock 
him  with  a  release  which  he  envied ! 3 

Unfortunately  the  means  for  suppressing  the  traffic  were  in 
adequate,  and  it  was  estimated  that  fully  two  hundred  thou 
sand  were  landed  yearly  on  the  western  shore  of  the  Atlantic — 
sixty  thousand  in  Cuba  alone — after  the  united  action  of  the 
great  Powers. 

1  Niks' s  National  Register,  April  21,  1821. 

2  Evidence  of  British  officers,  Report  of  Parliament. 
1  Lord  Brougham  on  the  slave  trade. 


CHAPTER    II 

INTOLERANCE   AND    REACTION   AFTER    1830 

A  CITATION  went  on  apace.  The  Southern  claims  of 
^~Y  property  rights  in  the  courts,  in  Congress  and  upon  for 
eign  governments  engaged  the  attention  not  only  of 
the  North  but  of  the  whole  civilized  world.  What  had  been 
accomplished  in  building  up  a  sentiment  antagonistic  to  the  in 
stitution  of  domestic  slavery,  through  the  press  and  religious 
organizations,  has  already  been  described.  After  1830  we 
meet  with  new  conditions.  For  the  first  time  in  the  history 
of  the  Republic,  the  influence  of  the  national  administration 
in  every  department  is  actively  employed  in  the  work  of  slavery 
propagandism.  Violence  and  intolerance,  born  of  the  temper 
of  the  President,  seize  upon  the  whole  country  and  attempt 
to  overthrow  all  the  sacred  safeguards  to  personal  liberty  set 
up  in  the  fundamental  law.  Disaster  and  degradation  came 
of  this  policy,  just  as  they  resulted  from  the  President's  finan 
cial  experiments  and  his  corruption  of  the  civil  service. 

The  great  debate  between  Hayne  and  Webster,  with  which 
the  new  decade  opened,  grew  out  of  the  exceptional  condi 
tions  of  Southern  civilization,  and  may  be  regarded  as  the 
prelude  to  the  bloody  tragedy  that  was  brought  to  a  close 
thirty-five  years  later.  The  victory  that  superior  intellect 
and  unapproachable  eloquence  then  won  in  debate,  fore 
shadowed  the  victory  of  arms  and  superior  numbers  in  the 
next  generation ;  but  contested  political  theories,  the  multi 
plex  affairs  of  the  Republic,  the  destinies  of  the  people,  were 
all 

VOL.    I. — 3. 

33 


34  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

— tangled  in  the  fold 
Of  dire  necessity. 

There  is  in  each  of  those  speeches  a  paragraph  which  gives  the 
point  of  view  of  each  side  in  the  slavery  controversy  at  that 
date.  Mr.  Hayne  remarked  on  the  "spirit  of  false  philan 
thropy"  then  abroad,  which  was  employed  in  lighting  the 
torches  of  discord  throughout  the  community,  and  then  added  : 
"Whatever  difference  of  opinion  may  exist  as  to  the  effects  of 
slavery  upon  national  wealth  and  prosperity,  if  we  may  trust 
to  experience,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  has  never  yet  pro 
duced  any  injurious  effect  on  individual  or  national  character." 

Slavery  [replied  Mr.  Webster]  has  always  been  regarded  as  a 
matter  of  domestic  policy,  left  with  the  States  themselves,  and  with 
which  the  federal  government  had  nothing  to  do.  I  regard  domes 
tic  slavery  as  one  of  the  greatest  of  evils,  both  moral  and  political. 
But  though  it  be  a  malady,  and  whether  it  be  curable,  and  if  so  by 
what  means;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  whether  it  be  the  vulnus  imme- 
dicabile  of  the  social  system,  I  leave  it  to  those  whose  right  and  duty 
it  is  to  inquire  and  decide.  And  this  I  believe  is,  and  uniformly 
has  been,  the  sentiment  of  the  North. 

The  student  of  these  times  will  be  impressed  with  the  great 
influence  on  the  current  of  events  of  the  Southampton  insur 
rection,  the  attempted  practical  application  of  nullification  in 
South  Carolina  and  its  defeat,  the  emancipation  of  slaves  in 
the  British  possessions  and  the  publication  of  a  work  on 
slavery  by  Dr.  Channing.  The  lofty  character  of  Dr.  Chan- 
ning,  his  eloquence,  unselfish  devotion  to  his  fellow  men,  high 
ideals  and  spirituality,1  had  given  him  a  great  hold  upon  the 
public  respect  and  confidence  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic 
Ocean.  He  had  spent  a  year  and  a  half  in  Virginia  in  the 
family  of  David  Meade  Randolph,  had  seen  the  bright  side  of 

]"I  would,  but  I  cannot,  enable  you  to  form  a  conception  of  the  infantine 
simplicity  and  apostolic  meekness,  united  with  the  eloquence  of  an  angel  and 
spirituality  of  a  sainted  mind,  which  characterize  Dr.  Channing." — George  Ripley, 
by  O.  B.  Frothingham,  p.  28.  Compare  also  Correspondence  of  James  Freeman 

Clarke,  1838. 


Intolerance  and  Reaction  after  1830         35 

Southern  social  life  and  the  evils  inseparable  from  the  system 
of  slavery.  Hence  any  word  of  his  penetrated  to  the  remotest 
parts  and  commanded  attention.  And  hence  his  Essay  on 
Slavery,  first  published  in  1835,  was  the  most  influential  con 
tribution  to  the  discussion  of  the  subject  throughout  the  whole 
controversy.1 

Dr.  Channing  approached  the  subject  in  charity.  In  point 
ing  out  the  evils  of  human  bondage,  he  did  not  forget  the 
perils  of  the  community  in  which  the  system  existed.  While 
regretting  the  loss  of  moral  power  in  the  North,  he  did  not 
fail  to  arraign  in  severe  terms  the  rashness  and  unwise  policy 
of  the  Abolitionists  as  being  in  a  sense  responsible  for  it.  The 
adoption  by  them  of  the  common  system  of  agitation  had  not 
been  justified  by  success. 

From  the  beginning  it  created  alarm  in  the  considerate  and 
strengthened  the  sympathies  of  the  free  States  with  the  slaveholder. 
It  made  converts  of  a  few  individuals,  but  alienated  multitudes. 
Its  influence  at  the  South  has  been  almost  wholly  evil.  It  has 
stirred  up  bitter  passions  and  fierce  fanaticism,  which  have  shut 
every  ear  and  every  heart  against  its  arguments  and  persuasions. 

These  effects  were  the  more  to  be  deplored,  because  the  hope 
of  freedom  to  the  slave  lay  chiefly  in  the  disposition  of  his 
master.  He  alone  had  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the  character 
and  habits  of  his  bondsman,  to  which  the  means  of  emancipa 
tion  should  be  carefully  adapted.  It  was  of  the  highest  im 
portance  that  slavery  should  be  succeeded  by  a  friendly  relation 
between  the  master  and  the  slave;  and  to  produce  this,  the 
latter  should  see  in  the  former  his  benefactor  and  deliverer. 

The  agency  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  formed 
in  1833  with  the  philanthropic  Arthur  Tappan  as  President, 
and  of  the  auxiliary  societies  which  flourished  for  a  brief 
season,  in  the  circulation  of  pamphlets  and  tracts  containing 
facts  otherwise  inaccessible  to  the  multitude,  in  providing 

1  Of  publications  that  appealed  to  the  reason.  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  addressed 
itself  to  the  feelings. 


36  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

protection  for  free  colored  people,  in  educating  them  and  in 
relieving  distress,  must  be  recognized  as  a  work  of  beneficence. 
The  pure  and  unselfish  motives  of  Garrison,  Tappan  and  their 
associates,  who  sacrificed  wealth,  social  position,  honor  and 
friendship  to  perform  what  they  believed  to  be 

A  stern  and  lofty  duty, 

is  plainly  seen  now  that  the  cause  of  controversy  has  disap 
peared,  even  though  denied  in  the  day  of  conflict.  "I  look 
to  posterity  for  a  good  reputation,"  wrote  Garrison,  and  he 
correctly  gauged  the  estimate  the  calm  judgment  of  posterity 
would  place  upon  the  purposes  of  an  upright  soul  in  a  cause 
in  which  the  poor  and  friendless  were  the  stake.  But  how 
much  he  influenced  the  final  result  with  his  Liberator  is  con 
jectural.  Dr.  Channing,  reasoning  from  a  profound  knowledge 
of  human  nature,  believed  that  the  severity  of  the  arraignment 
of  slaveholders,  the  fierce,  bitter,  exasperating  tone  of  the 
press,  had  the  effect  of  exciting  the  deepest  resentments;  and 
that  the  agitators  had  fallen  into  the  common  error  of  enthu 
siasts,  "of  feeling  as  if  no  evil  existed  but  that  which  they 
opposed,  and  as  if  no  guilt  could  be  compared  with  that  of 
countenancing  or  upholding  it." 

It  is  useful  to  compare  this  narrow  policy  of  denunciation, 
as  described  by  Dr.  Channing,  with  the  policy  pursued  by  the 
Friends  at  an  earlier  day.  Nothing  that  the  Abolitionists 
uttered  in  Northern  communities  was  better  said  than  this  by 
Robert  Williams,1  a  Quaker  of  Carteret  County,  North  Caro 
lina: 

The  Divine  Law  that  enjoins  us  to  do  unto  all  men  as  we  would 
they  should  do  unto  us,  in  its  moral  fitness,  outweighs  anything  that 
can  be  advanced  for  keeping  slaves  in  bondage,  for  while  we  with 
hold  their  freedom,  we  are  in  a  great  measure  the  cause,  and 

1  Robert  Williams  manumitted  his  own  slaves,  thus  making  example  conform  to 
precept.  He  was  a  member  and  beloved  minister  of  the  Friends'  Monthly  Meet 
ing  at  Core  Sound,  and  died  in  1790.  For  an  account  of  this  Williams  family  see 
the  America^  Pioneer,  vol.  ii.,  p.  436. 


Intolerance  and  Reaction  after  1830         37 

altogether  the  patrons,  of  their  ignorance,  their  dissolute  lives  and 
conversation. 

So,  beholding  the  result  of  the  teaching  of  Robert  Williams 
and  John  Woolman,  men  manumitted  their  slaves,  and,  in 
order  that  they  might  be  instructed  and  guided  unmolested, 
removed  with  them  to  another  section  and  made  new  homes 
among  strangers. 

To  meet  the  rising  tide  of  opposition  on  moral  grounds,  the 
Southern  leaders  proclaimed  the  good  of  the  institution.  "If 
the  principle  be  once  acknowledged,"  said  the  New  Orleans 
True  American,  "that  slavery  is  an  evil,  the  success  of  the 
fanatics  is  certain."  Calhoun  was  looked  to,  like  a  hierophant 
of  old,  to  propound  the  mysteries  of  good  and  evil.  Many 
in  the  South,  said  he,  once  believed  that  slavery  was  a  moral 
and  political  evil;  "that  folly  and  delusion  are  gone.  We  see 
it  now  in  its  true  light,  and  regard  it  as  the  most  safe  and 
stable  basis  for  free  institutions  in  the  world. " '  Or,  expressed 
in  the  terse  language  of  Jefferson  Davis,  Mr.  Calhoun's  lieu 
tenant:  "Our  slaves  sustain  the  happiest  relation  that  labor  can 
sustain  to  capital.  It  is  a  paternal  institution."2 

Dr.  Channing's  comment  on  this  new  attitude  of  the  South 
fell  with  ponderous  force : 

We  have  even  been  told,  not  by  a  handful  of  enthusiasts  in 
private  life,  but  by  men  in  the  highest  station  and  of  widest  influ 
ence  at  the  South,  that  slavery  is  the  soil  into  which  political  free 
dom  strikes  its  deepest  roots  and  that  republican  institutions  are 
never  so  secure  as  when  the  laboring  class  is  reduced  to  servitude. 
Certainly  no  assertion  of  the  wildest  Abolitionist  could  give  such  a 
shock  to  the  slaveholder  as  this  new  doctrine  is  fitted  to  give  to  the 
people  of  the  North.  Liberty,  with  a  slave  for  her  pedestal  and  a 
chain  in  her  hand,  is  an  image  from  which  our  understandings  and 
hearts  alike  recoil.  A  doctrine  more  wounding  or  insulting  to  the 
mechanics,  farmers,  laborers  of  the  North  than  this  strange  heresy 
cannot  well  be  conceived.  A  doctrine  more  irreverent,  more  fatal 

'Speech,  Jan.  10,  1838.      Works,  vol.  iii.,  p.  180. 
8  Speech  in  Senate,  April  20,  1848.     Pamphlet. 


38  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

to  republican  institutions,  was  never  fabricated  in  the  councils  of 
despotism. 

Everywhere  the  comfortableness  of  having  a  servant  class 
wholly  dependent  on  the  will  and  intelligence  of  the  superior 
or  ruling  class  (relations  regarded  as  necessary  in  modern  social 
life)  was  dwelt  on,  and  doubtless  there  were  some  even  in  the 
North  who  held  with  Mr.  Tomlinson,  the  rich  miller,1  that  a 
servant  who  could  "nayther  read  nor  write,  and  did  n't  know 
the  year  o'  the  Lord  as  she  was  born  in,"  was  less  trouble 
than  one  who  had  been  taught  from  books;  but  such  senti 
ments,  if  entertained,  were  not  proclaimed  from  the  housetops 
in  the  North,  where  freedmen  cast  ballots. 

We  were  assured  by  high  authority  that  the  majority  of 
Southern  planters  believed  that  the  African  had  as  much  free 
dom,  and  as  many  privileges,  as  he  was  capable  of  using  to 
advantage ;  that  he  was  a  ward  for  whose  well-being  the  master 
was  responsible,  and  that  interest  and  moral  obligation  secured 
him  kind  treatment.  It  was  believed  that  the  relation  of 
master  and  servant  originated  in  the  will  of  God ;  that  it  would 
last  to  the  end  of  time;  that  all  its  evils  would  soon  disappear 
from  the  picture  of  human  woe,  and  then  the  institution  would 
be  the  source  of  the  most  amiable,  endearing,  permanent  and 
useful  affections  of  which  human  nature  was  susceptible.2 

It  was  now  widely  proclaimed  that  slavery  had  done  more 
to  elevate  a  degraded  race  in  the  scale  of  humanity,  and  to 
spread  the  blessings  of  Christianity  among  the  heathen,  than 
all  the  missionaries  that  philanthropy  and  religion  had  ever 
sent  forth.  This  was  the  language  of  societies,  synods  and 
conferences  having  to  do  with  the  order  of  society  in  one 
section  of  the  country,  which  had  its  influence  on  religious 
bodies  in  the  North,  and  made  them,  for  a  season,  the  most 
implacable  opponents  of  the  Abolitionists.  The  language  of 
denunciation  and  indiscriminate  condemnation  employed  by 

1  Jane? 's  Repentance. 

2  Sermon  by  Rev.  Theodore  Clapp,  pastor  of  the  First  Congregational  Church 
of  New  Orleans,  April  15,  1838,  pp.  52-65. 


Intolerance  and  Reaction  after  1830         39 

the  latter  in  enforcing  their  views,  and  their  reckless  methods 
in  reaching  the  masters,  had  wrought  mischief  in  both  Sections.1 

The  imaginations  of  men  beheld  a  possible  conflagration  and 
ruin,  evils  of  greater  moment  to  mankind  than  the  continuance 
of  an  inherited  system  of  servitude.  Reaction  took  place. 
There  was  manifest  everywhere  a  resolution  to  crush  out  agi 
tation.  The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  held  in  Cincinnati  in  1836,  condemned  abolitionism 
and  censured  two  members  who  had  addressed  an  anti-slavery 
meeting.  In  vain  did  the  minority  appeal  to  the  records  of 
the  past  as  bearing  uniform  testimony  to  the  evils  of  domestic 
slavery.2  It  was  now  a  political  question  with  which  none  but 
the  South  had  anything  to  do.  This  became  the  language  of 
synods  and  assemblies  also,  and  in  obedience  to  this  new 
policy  the  doors  of  churches  and  halls  were  closed  to  free  dis 
cussion.  A  few  years  later  and  these  religious  organizations 
were  rent  in  twain,  and  new  ones  were  formed  in  the  North 
pledged  to  the  propagation  of  anti-slavery  doctrine.3  Ere  long 
Christian  anti-slavery  meetings  became  the  order  of  the  day. 

There  were  fanatics  in  both  sections  who  were  impatient  to 
let  slip  the  dogs  of  war.  They  inspired  the  weak  and  vicious 
to  deeds  of  destruction  and  violence.  "If  the  Abolitionists 
will  set  the  country  in  a  blaze,"  said  one  high  in  the  Presby 
terian  Church,  South,  "it  is  but  fair  that  they  should  receive 
the  first  warming  at  the  fire." 

"  Now,  dear  Christian  brethren,"  said  another  to  his  congregation, 
"  I  humbly  express  it  as  my  earnest  wish,  that  you  quit  yourselves 
like  men.  If  there  be  any  stray  goat  of  a  minister  among  you, 
tainted  with  the  blood-hound  principles  of  abolitionism,  let  him  be 

1  While  the  anti-slavery  societies  declared  that  they  sought   to  accomplish  the 
abolition  of  slavery  by  the  application  of  truth  to  the  conscience,  and  printed  and 
circulated  much  that  was  useful,  we  have  the  testimony  of  one  friendly  to  emanci 
pation  that  no  small  proportion  of  their  publications  were  "  rash,  uncharitable  and 
slanderous  ;  and  some  of  them  cannot, .in  truth,  be  called  less  than  incendiary" — 
Remark  by  Gerrit  Smith  in  1834. 

2  See  ante,  p.  4. 

3  The  Wesleyan,  founded  in  1843,  was  perhaps  the  most  active. 


40  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

ferreted  out,  silenced,  excommunicated  and  left  to  the  public  to 
dispose  of  him  in  other  respects."  1 

But  the  North  was  not  to  be  outdone.  Said  Mr.  Stephen 
S.  Foster,  one  of  the  foremost  Abolitionists  of  his  time: 

Of  Mr.  Tyler's  Cabinet  a  majority  are  negro  thieves — five  of  the 
judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  are  negro  thieves — the  President  of  the 
United  States  Senate  is  a  negro  thief — the  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  is  a  negro  thief — the  officer  first  in  command  of  the 
United  States  Army  is  a  negro  thief — a  majority  of  all  our  ministers 
to  foreign  courts  are  negro  thieves.  And  yet  these  men  were  all 
elected  to  office  by  the  votes,  direct  or  indirect,  of  the  great  body 
of  the  Northern  church  and  clergy.  But  why  have  the  clergy  and 
their  adherents  shown  this  preference  for  thieves  to  rule  the  nation 
and  shape  its  destinies?  Doubtless  because  they  are  "  a  brother 
hood  of  thieves,"  as  like  always  seeks  its  like.a 

Again :  No  intelligent  man  could  vote  with  the  Whig  or 
Democratic  party,  and  claim  to  be  innocent  of  the  crime  of 
slavery. 

Sooner  will  Pontius  Pilate  shake  from  his  spotted  robes  the  blood 
of  the  murdered  Jesus;  sooner,  far  sooner,  will  the  infatuated  Jew 
who  cried,  "Away  with  him,  away  with  him,  let  him  be  crucified!  " 
stand  acquitted  before  the  bar  of  the  final  judge,  than  such  a  man 
exculpate  himself  from  the  guilt  of  slavery. 

What  befell  is  what  had  always  been  the  experience,  what 
must  needs  be  ever  the  experience  of  society  when  men  "en 
counter  with  such  bitter  tongues  "  ;  when  full  play  is  given  to 
passion,  prejudice  and  all  uncharitableness.  Mobs  sprang  up, 
property  was  destroyed,  lives  were  sacrificed,  social  order  was 
invaded  and  law  defied.  Municipal  government  became  im 
potent  to  protect,  or  served  as  a  cloak  for  the  destructive 
forces.  In  the  national  legislature  the  safeguards  of  personal 
liberty  were  set  aside,  and  the  administrative  arm  of  the  gov- 

1  The  Church  as  It  Is.      1847. 

^The  Brotherhood  of  Thieves ;  or,  A  True  Picture  of  the  American  Church 
and  Clergy,  p.  23. 


Intolerance  and  Reaction  after  1830        41 

ernment  gave  countenance  to  the  invasion  of  the  right  of  free 
speech.  But  the  innocent  objects  of  the  contention  suffered 
most.  After  fifteen  years  of  this  commotion,  the  testimony 
of  the  judicious  was,  that  the  tendency  to  gradual  emancipa 
tion  in  the  border  States  had  been  checked,  and  that  the  Abo 
litionists  had  done  more  to  rivet  the  chains  of  the  slave,  and 
to  fasten  the  curse  of  slavery  upon  the  country,  "than  all  the 
pro-slavery  men  in  the  world  had  done,  or  could  do,  in  half  a 
century."  1 

The  reaction  which  set  in  against  the  extreme  methods  of 
the  immediate  Abolitionists  was  made  intense,  without  a 
doubt,  by  fears  created  by  the  bloody  insurrection  at  South 
ampton.  The  people  of  the  North  felt  in  a  measure,  through 
sympathy,  the  terror  of  wives  and  mothers  who  saw  in  every 
slave  a  possible  Nat  Turner,  and  they  discountenanced  a 
policy  of  agitation  calculated  to  excite  other  insurrections. 
They  felt  the  force  of  Dr.  Channing's  cautionary  remark,  that, 
as  slavery  and  security  could  by  no  device  be  joined  together, 
to  instigate  the  slave  to  insurrection  was  a  crime  for  which  no 
rebuke  and  no  punishment  could  be  too  severe.  That  this 
humane  feeling  served  as  a  cloak  and  justification  for  mob 
violence  was  history  repeating  itself,  but  was  an  exhibition  of 
lawlessness  inexcusable  under  any  form  of  government,  and 
especially  so  in  the  towns  and  cities  of  the  North.  These  dis 
orders  which  began  in  1834  gradually  subsided  after  1837,  and 
proved,  contrary  to  the  expectations  of  those  who  looked  on 
approvingly,  effective  arguments  in  convincing  the  most 
thoughtful  that  some  means  must  be  found  to  get  rid  of  an 
institution  that  could  exist  only  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  dearest 
rights  of  personal  liberty.  Thus  the  violence  that  destroyed 
the  residences  of  Arthur  Tappan  and  of  free  people  of  color  in 
New  York;  that  made  George  Thompson  and  William  Lloyd 
Garrison  fugitives  from  Boston;  that  drove  a  body  of  respect 
able  and  well-known  citizens  out  of  Utica;  that  destroyed 

1  Address  to  the  People  of  IVest  Virginia,  showing  that  slavery  is  injurious  to  the 
public  -welfare,  and  that  it  may  be  gradually  abolished,  etc.  By  Henry  Ruffner, 
D.D.,  1847. 


42  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

printing-presses  at  Cincinnati  and  Alton ;  that  burned  to  the 
ground  at  Philadelphia  a  public  hall  dedicated  to  free  discus 
sion;  that  persecuted  innocent  unfortunates  everywhere;  that 
subverted  law  with  the  consent  of  those  intrusted  by  society 
with  its  execution,  prepared  the  way  for  a  political  revolution. 
The  blood  of  the  murdered  Lovejoy  seemed  to  be  what  the 
soil  of  America  needed  to  restore  the  days  of  1776.  In  every 
community  there  appeared  in  an  autochthonous  way,  as  it 
were,  wise  men  who  reproclaimed  the  principles  of  American 
freedom  and  exhorted  to  public  duty. 

Misinterpreting  the  popular  manifestations  in  the  free  States, 
the  Southern  leaders  multiplied  their  demands  for  security, 
which  if  granted  in  full  measure  would  have  subverted  the 
most  precious  rights  embraced  in  the  fundamental  laws  of 
those  States.  There  were  representatives  of  the  mercantile 
and  commercial  classes,  there  were  expectant  politicians,  who 
manifested  a  readiness  to  concede  every  demand ;  but  there 
was  a  conservative  influence,  not  taken  into  account  by  those 
who  were  shaping  this  new  policy,  which  in  due  time  changed 
public  opinion  and  the  current  of  events.  This  security  which 
the  political  South  now  demanded  was  the  suppression  of  all 
discussion  of  the  slavery  question,  for  a  belief  was  prevalent 
that  a  persistent  appeal  to  the  consciences  and  fears  of  the 
slaveholders  themselves  would  result  in  the  destruction  of  the 
institution.1  To  this  end  the  majority  in  Congress  were  in 
structed  to  deny  the  right  of  petition,  and  the  Northern  States 
were  requested  to  enact  laws  to  suppress  anti-slavery  societies, 
and  to  make  the  printing  of  papers,  pamphlets,  books  or  circu 
lars  relating  to  slavery  a  penal  offence. 

The  act  of  the  postmaster  of  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  in 
refusing  to  deliver  anti-slavery  publications  sent  through  the 
mails,  and  the  act  of  the  postmaster  of  New  York  in  refusing 
to  forward  them,  received  the  endorsement  of  Amos  Kendall, 
Postmaster-General,  who  said  in  his  letter  to  the  former:  "We 
owe  an  obligation  to  the  laws,  but  a  higher  one  to  the  com 
munities  in  which  we  live;  and  if  the  former  be  perverted  to 

1  This  view  was  expressed  by  General  Duff  Green. 


Intolerance  and  Reaction  after  1830        43 

destroy  the  latter,  it  is  patriotism  to  disregard  them."  Presi 
dent  Jackson,  in  his  annual  message  to  Congress,  in  December, 
1835,  recommended  the  passage  of  a  law  that  would  "prohibit 
under  severe  penalties  the  circulation  in  the  Southern  States, 
through  the  mail,  of  incendiary  publications  intended  to  in 
stigate  the  slaves  to  insurrection."  A  bill  to  accomplish  this 
purpose  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Calhoun  and 
ordered  to  a  third  reading  by  a  tie  vote  of  Senators,  and  Vice- 
President  Van  Buren's  casting  vote  in  the  affirmative.  The 
measure  was  lost  on  the  final  vote  by  nineteen  to  twenty-five. 
Seven  Southern  Senators  voted  against  it,  including  Mr.  Clay, 
Mr.  Crittenden  and  Mr.  Benton. 

The  free  State  Legislatures  during  this  same  winter  had 
under  consideration  bills  against  the  freedom  of  the  press. 
They  made  it  a  misdemeanor,  punishable  by  fine  or  imprison 
ment,  or  both,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court,  to  publish  or  cir 
culate  any  writing  or  picture  the  tendency  of  which  was  to 
cause  insurrection,  commotion  or  breach  of  the  peace  in  the 
slaveholding  States.  It  was  made  the  duty  of  the  executive, 
on  complaint  of  the  executive  of  a  slave  State,  to  require  the 
district  attorney  to  place  evidence  of  the  violation  of  the  law 
by  any  citizen  of  such  free  State  before  a  grand  jury,  and  upon 
return  of  an  indictment  to  cause  the  arrest  of  the  accused,  who 
was  to  be  delivered  up  to  an  accredited  agent  of  the  complain 
ing  executive  of  the  slave  State,  in  which  alone  a  trial  could 
be  had. 

Governor  Everett  of  Massachusetts,  representing  the  Whig 
party,  recommended  the  enactment  of  such  a  law,  which  was 
successfully  resisted  by  the  Abolitionists  of  that  State.  Gov 
ernor  Marcy  of  New  York,  representing  the  Democratic  party, 
affirmed  the  power  of  the  State  to  pass  such  a  law,  but  ex 
pressed  the  belief  that  public  opinion  was  sufficient  to  meet 
the  emergency.  Only  Governor  Ritter  of  Pennsylvania  dis 
sented  from  the  policy  of  suppression.  While  admitting  the 
constitutional  rights  of  sister  States  on  this  subject,  he  said : 
"Above  all,  let  us  never  yield  up  the  right  of  free  discussion 
of  any  evil  which  may  arise  in  the  land  or  any  part  of  it." 


44  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

No  free  State  Legislature  passed  any  measure  impairing  the 
rights  of  citizens  or  of  the  press.  But  that  such  action  was 
anticipated  would  seem  to  be  clear  from  a  demand  made  by 
the  Governor  of  Alabama  on  the  Governor  of  New  York,  for 
the  surrender  of  R.  G.  Williams,  publisher  of  the  Emancipator ', 
to  be  tried  under  the  laws  of  Alabama.  Mr.  Williams  had 
never  been  in  the  latter  State. 

A  practical  application  of  the  principles  of  this  proposed 
measure  was  made  by  Kentucky  in  1838.  Two  indictments 
were  found  against  the  Rev.  John  B.  Mahan,  a  minister  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  residing  in  Brown  County,  Ohio, 
by  a  grand  jury  of  Kentucky,  for  aiding  in  the  escape  of  slaves 
of  William  Greathouse,  and  upon  them  the  Governor  issued 
a  requisition  on  the  Governor  of  Ohio  for  the  surrender  of 
Mahan  as  a  fugitive  from  justice.  The  Governor  of  Ohio, 
without  proper  examination,  issued  a  warrant  for  that  purpose. 
Mr.  Mahan  was  arrested,  denied  the  benefit  of  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus,  hurried  out  of  the  State,  thrown  into  a  Kentucky  jail 
and  loaded  with  irons.  There  he  lay  for  nearly  three  months, 
when  his  trial  came  on  before  the  Circuit  Court  of  Mason 
County.  The  testimony  against  him  related  merely  to  acts 
done  in  Ohio,  and  was  given  by  a  single  witness  of  disreputa 
ble  character,  who  admitted  on  cross-examination  that  he 
had  practised  upon  the  prisoner  a  system  of  gross  deception. 
The  ground  assumed  by  the  prosecution  was,  that  the  juris 
diction  of  Kentucky  extended  to  acts  done  in  another  State, 
if  their  effects  terminated  in  Kentucky.  But  the  court  de 
cided  that  the  case  was  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State, 
and  the  prisoner  was  discharged.  He  was  again  arrested  on  a 
civil  process,  but  was  permitted  to  give  bail  and  return  home. 
The  bail,  amounting  to  twelve  hundred  dollars,  was  paid  by  a 
friend  of  Mr.  Mahan's  and  thus  ended  the  persecution.  The 
defeat  of  Governor  Vance,  who  was  a  candidate  for  re-election, 
because  of  his  inconsiderate  action,  followed  as  a  sequel  to  the 
incident.1 

The  members  of  the  Ohio  General  Assembly,  who,  acting 

1  Private  Correspondence  of  Henry  Clay,  Nov.  3,  1838. 


Intolerance  and  Reaction  after  1830        45 

in  the  same  spirit  of  complacency,  passed  a  law  requiring  min 
isterial  officers  of  courts  of  justice  to  render  assistance  in  the 
execution  of  the  act  of  1793,  denying  the  right  of  hearing 
before  a  jury  and  securing  slave-catchers  against  liability  of 
punishment,  were  also  rebuked  by  the  people  at  the  polls. 

Kentucky  gave  very  different  protection  to  her  citizens.  A 
statute  of  1820  provided  that  the  delivery  of  a  person  claimed 
as  a  fugitive  from  justice  should  not  take  place  until  such  per 
son  was  properly  identified  before  a  circuit  judge;  and  that 
whenever  a  citizen  of  Kentucky,  indicted  in  Ohio  for  removing 
an  alleged  slave  from  its  territory  without  proof  of  property 
before  a  legal  tribunal,  was  demanded  by  the  executive  of 
Ohio,  he  had  a  right  to  introduce  proof  before  a  court  in  his 
own  State  that  he  was  not  the  person  demanded,  and  should 
have  the  right  of  proving  himself  the  owner  of  the  slave,  in 
which  case  the  judge  was  bound  to  discharge  him,  and  the 
executive  to  refuse  the  demand. 

This  new  policy  of  suppression  invited  criticisms  from  the 
independent  press  of  the  North,  thus  defeating  its  own  end: 

The  threat  is  held  up  to  us  [commented  the  New  York  Evening 
Post,  a  Democratic  newspaper]  that  unless  we  speedily  pass  laws 
to  prohibit  all  expression  of  opinion  on  the  dreadful  topic  of  slavery, 
the  Southern  States  will  meet  in  convention,  separate  themselves 
from  the  North,  and  establish  a  separate  empire  for  themselves. 
The  next  claim  we  shall  hear  from  the  arrogant  South  will  be  a  call 
upon  us  to  pass  edicts  forbidding  men  to  think  on  the  subject  of 
slavery,  on  the  ground  that  even  meditation  on  that  topic  is  inter 
dicted  by  the  spirit  of  the  federal  compact.  If  the  political  union 
of  these  States  is  only  to  be  preserved  by  yielding  to  the  claims  set 
up  by  the  South;  if  the  tie  of  confederation  is  of  such  a  kind  that 
the  breath  of  free  discussion  will  inevitably  dissolve  it;  if  we  can 
hope  to  maintain  our  fraternal  connection  with  our  brothers  of  the 
South  only  by  dismissing  all  hope  of  ultimate  freedom  to  the  slave, 
let  the  compact  be  dissolved,  rather  than  submit  to  such  dishonor 
able,  such  inhuman  terms  for  its  preservation.1 

1  New  York  Evening  Post,  Sept.  9,  1835.  The  Evening  Post  was  then  edited 
by  William  Leggett,  an  able  journalist,  and  an  adherent  of  the  political  fortunes 
of  Andrew  Jackson.  It  was  the  recognized  organ  of  the  administration  in  New 


46  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

The  period  from  1830  to  1841  witnessed  the  most  violent 
party  conflicts,  and  the  most  daring  invasion  of  personal  lib 
erty.  The  rights  of  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the  Union  were 
subordinated  to  the  claims  of  a  class,  and  the  legitimate  func 
tions  of  the  national  legislature  interrupted  by  the  contentions 
of  men  mad  with  passion.  If  the  right  of  petition  was  asserted 
unduly,  as  was  claimed,  the  power  of  the  majority  was  enlisted 
in  behalf  of  an  institution  at  war  with  an  enlightened  civiliza 
tion.  The  counsels  of  the  considerate  were  disregarded,  and 
the  rule  of  violence  held  sway  and  directed  the  destinies  of  the 
Republic.  The  most  conspicuous  figure  during  these  mad 
years  is  that  of  the  venerable  Representative  of  the  Quincy 
district  of  Massachusetts,  whose  privilege  it  was  to  set  such  an 
example  of  faithfulness  to  duty  as  will  serve  as  an  inspiration 
to  the  patriotic  of  every  age.  He  was  no  Abolitionist ;  he  did 
not  think  it  right  for  him  to  favor  the  abolition  of  slavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia  without  the  approval  of  the  people 
of  the  district,1  but  the  right  of  petition  at  all  times  he  upheld 
with  an  eloquence  and  a  power  of  argument  unequalled.  The 
taunts,  the  insults,  the  censure  meted  out  to  him,  which  the 
annals  of  Congress  reveal,  the  historical  student  now  contem 
plates  with  a  strange  revulsion  of  feeling.  How  impotent 
seems  the  power  of  a  political  body  when  exerted  to  suppress 
truth,  to  crush  liberty!  The  resolutions  which  embodied  that 
power,  known  to  history  as  the  "Gag  Resolutions,"  beginning 
with  Pinckney's  of  May  26,  1836,  and  ending  with  Johnson's 
of  January  28,  iS4O,2  have  been  swept  into  the  dust  cart  with 
much  other  legislative  rubbish  condemned  by  time. 

York.  Leggett  did  not  hesitate  to  censure  Postmaster-General  Kendall  in  severe 
terms  for  his  letters  sanctioning  interference  with  the  mails.  "  If,  according  to 
his  ideas  of  patriotism,  every  postmaster  may  suspend  the  operations  of  the  laws 
in  his  supreme  discretion,  we  trust  Mr.  Kendall  may  be  permitted  to  retire  from 
a  post  where,  such  opinions  have  extensive  influence,  and  enjoy  his  notions  of  patri 
otism  in  a  private  station.  .  .  .  Who  gives  a  right  to  judge  of  what  is  incen 
diary  and  inflammatory  ?  Was  there  any  reservation  of  that  sort  in  his  oath  of 
office?" — Evening  Post,  April  12,  1835. 

1  Some  Recollections  of  our  Anti-Slavery  Conflict,  p.  21 1.     Interview  with  John 
Quincy  Adams. 

2  Of  the  117  yeas  given  for  Mr.  Pinckney's  resolution,   82    were  from  the  free 


Intolerance  and  Reaction  after  1830        47 

Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Calhoun  concurred  in  the  opinion  that 
the  purpose  of  the  petitioners  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia  was  a  step  towards  the  abolition 
throughout  the  Union  of  the  institution  of  domestic  slavery.1 
The  first  battle,  said  the  South  Carolinian,  would  be  fought 
in  the  District  and  the  territories.  To  yield  here,  "would  be 
to  give  the  first  victory  to  the  foes,  with  all  the  fatal  conse 
quences  which  usually  follow  a  defeat  on  the  first  encounter." 
With  this  knowledge,  the  Southern  policy  ought  to  be  to 
strengthen  and  fortify  those  points  most  effectually.  Accord 
ingly  this  able  leader  prepared  a  series  of  resolutions,  which 
were  laid  before  the  Senate  in  December,  designed  to  circum 
vent  the  plans  of  the  enemy.  These  resolutions  declared  that 
the  States  had  the  exclusive  right  over  their  own  domestic  in 
stitutions,  and  any  intermeddling  of  any  State  or  combination 
of  their  citizens  was  subversive  of  the  objects  for  which  the 
Constitution  was  formed ;  that  as  the  general  government 
was  the  common  agent,  it  was  bound  to  give  increased  sta 
bility  and  security  to  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  States; 
and  that  the  passage  of  any  act  or  measure  of  Congress  with 
the  view  of  abolishing  slavery  in  the  District  or  any  of  the 
territories  "would  be  a  direct  and  dangerous  attack  on  the 
institutions  of  all  the  slaveholding  States." 

Mr.  Calhoun  saw  in  the  question  the  fate  of  the  South.  "It 
was  a  higher  than  the  mere  naked  question  of  master  and 
slave.  It  involved  a  great  political  institution,  essential  to  the 

States.  The  Atherton  resolution,  Jan.  12,  1839,  had  a  majority  of  48.  Of  the 
yeas,  49  were  from  the  free  States,  and  these  all  of  the  Democratic  party.  Some 
Southern  Whigs  voted  for  all  of  the  resolutions.  The  falling  off  in  the  Northern 
vote  shows  the  constant  growth  of  the  opposition  sentiment  under  the  force 
policy,  which  finally  became  so  pronounced  by  1844  as  to  enable  John  Quincy 
Adams  to  secure  the  repeal  in  the  House  of  the  2ist  Rule,  formulated  from  the 
"Gag  Resolutions."  This  extraordinary  rule  provided  that  "every  petition, 
memorial,  resolution,  proposition  or  paper,  touching  or  relating  to  slavery  or  the 
abolition  thereof,  shall  on  presentation  thereof,  without  any  further  action  thereon, 
be  laid  upon  the  table,  without  being  debated,  printed  or  referred." 

Correspondence,  March  31,  1837,  see  Charles  Hammond  and  his  Relations  to 
Henry  Clay  and  John  Quincy  Adams,  p.  67  ;  also  speech  of  Mr.  Calhoun  in  the 
Senate,  Jan.  10,  1838,  Works,  pp.  179-184. 


48  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

peace  and  existence  of  one  half  of  the  Union."  The  debate, 
which  extended  over  several  days,  was  animated  and  was  par 
ticipated  in  by  Clay,  Webster,  Benton,  Preston,  Crittenden, 
Morris,  Rives  and  others  —  a  brilliant  array  of  talent.  Mr. 
Crittenden  thought  the  resolutions  impracticable,  and  more 
calculated  to  produce  agitation  and  stir  up  discontent  and  bad 
blood  than  to  do  any  good  whatever.  An  amendment  offered 
by  Mr.  Clay  as  to  the  District  of  Columbia  was  adopted,  in 
lieu  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  resolution.  Mr.  Calhoun  did  not  deny 
the  power  of  Congress  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  and 
the  territories,  while  Mr.  Clay  conceded  it,  but  based  opposi 
tion  on  the  ground  of  its  inexpediency.  The  most  notable 
speech  of  this  discussion  in  opposition  was  made  by  Mr. 
Morris  of  Ohio,  because  it  was  a  bold  exposition  of  the  anti- 
slavery  sentiment  of  the  North.  He  proposed  counter  resolu 
tions  in  which  the  power  of  Congress  to  prohibit  the  interstate 
slave  trade  and  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  and  the  terri 
tories  was  declared.  Attacks  on  the  right  of  petition,  on 
freedom  of  speech  or  the  liberty  of  the  press,  which  were  in 
separable  from  free  government  and  free  citizenship,  he  re 
garded  as  "a  manifest  breach  of  faith,  and  a  violation  of  the 
most  solemn  obligations,  political,  moral  and  religious." 

Mr.  Van  Buren  was  the  first  President  elected  upon  the 
slavery  issue.  During  his  candidacy  he  declared  that,  if 
elected,  he  must  go  into  the  presidential  chair,  "the  inflexible 
and  uncompromising  opponent  of  every  attempt  on  the  part 
of  Congress  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
against  the  wishes  of  the  slaveholding  States;  and  also  with 
a  determination  equally  decided  to  resist  the  slightest  inter 
ference  with  it  in  the  States  where  it  exists."  Accordingly, 
in  his  inaugural  address  he  announced  that  no  bill  conflicting 
with  these  views  could  receive  his  constitutional  sanction. 

The  criticisms  which  this  unusual  announcement  invited 
were  by  no  means  confined  to  political  opponents.  His  old 
party  and  personal  friend,  William  Leggett,  in  bitterness  of 
spirit,  censured  him  with  great  severity  for  his  indecent  haste 
to  avow  his  predeterminations  on  the  subject  of  slavery, 


Intolerance  and  Reaction  after  1830         49 

"which  had  not  even  the  merit  of  boldness.  It  was  made  in 
a  cringing  spirit  of  propitiation  to  the  South,  in  the  certainty 
that  a  majority  at  the  North  accorded  with  his  views." 

It  was  remarked  that  as  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  heir  to  General 
Jackson's  political  fortune  he  was  expected  to  carry  out  his 
policies,  and  this  expectation  he  zealously  endeavored  to  ful 
fil.  It  fell  to  his  lot  to  bring  to  a  conclusion  the  second  war 
with  the  Seminole  Indians,  for  which  his  predecessor  was  re 
sponsible,  as  well  as  for  the  first  war  with  its  bloody  atrocities. 
This  second  war,  instituted  for  the  double  purpose  of  remov 
ing  the  Indians  from  their  Florida  homes,  which  white  men 
coveted,  and  of  capturing  a  few  hundred  negroes  to  whom 
Georgia  laid  claim,  was  characterized  by  shameless  deeds  of 
inhumanity  and  moral  turpitude  on  the  part  of  the  agents  of 
the  government.  The  tragical  story,  which  will  be  found  in 
print,  is  the  story  of  savage  life  exhibiting  love  of  country, 
fidelity  to  friendship,  family  affection,  hatred  of  oppression 
and  revenge  upon  enemies — such  as  in  the  history  of  other 
races  have  won  admiration  and  sympathy.2 

1  The  New  York  Plaindealer,  March  n,  1837.  Mr.  Leggett  had  retired  from 
the  Evening  Post  and  established  the  Plaindealer. 

8  Domiciled  with  the  Seminoles  were  hundreds  of  negroes  and  persons  of  mixed 
Indian  and  negro  blood,  descendants  of  Indians  and  negroes  who  had  fled  from 
slavery  during  the  Revolutionary  War,  and  who  had  in  many  cases  acted  as  allies 
of  the  English,  called  "  Exiles,"  or  "  Maroons."  The  efforts  of  the  whites  and 
agents  of  the  government  to  enslave  these  free  people  were  the  real  cause  of  the 
resistance  of  the  Seminoles.  After  seven  years  of  war  the  removal  to  the  West 
was  effected.  Another  attempt  made  in  the  Indian  Territory  to  enslave  the 
"Exiles"  led  to  their  removal  to  Mexico,  where  at  last  they  found  security. 
This  war,  instigated  by,  and  conducted  for,  the  slaveholders  of  Georgia  and 
Florida,  cost  the  sacrifice  of  their  lives  to  many  brave  soldiers,  and  to  the  whole 
people  of  the  United  States  about  forty  millions  of  dollars  ! 

For  full  particulars  of  this  extraordinary  incident  in  our  history  consult  Execu 
tive  Documents  of  the  XVth  Congress,  and  the  following  meritorious  works  : 
The  War  in  Florida,  Being  an  Exposition  of  its  Caztses.  By  a  Late  Staff  Officer, 
1836.  This  covers  the  campaigns  of  Generals  Clinch,  Gaines  and  Scott.  The 
Origin,  Progress  and  Conclusion  of  the  Florida  War.  By  John  T.  Sprague, 
Brevet  Captain  Eighth  Regiment  U.  S.  Infantry,  1848.  The  Exiles  of  Florida. 
By  Joshua  R.  Giddings.  This  work  is  the  result  of  original  researches  by  a  mem 
ber  of  Congress,  who  through  much  labor  secured  the  facts. 

VOL.    I  —4. 


50  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

An  exceptional  circumstance  grew  out  of  this  war,  which  in 
volved  our  government  in  curious  complications.  The  Creek 
Indians  had  been  employed  to  aid  in  capturing  negroes  living 
with  the  Seminoles  in  Florida,  for  which  they  were  to  be  com 
pensated  by  the  government.  Ninety  of  those  captured  were 
sent  by  General  Jessup  to  Fort  Pike,  where  they  were  clothed 
and  fed  at  the  public  expense  for  more  than  a  year.  The  War 
Department,  fearing  to  invite  public  comment  by  calling  for 
an  appropriation  to  send  them  to  Liberia,  induced  James  C. 
Watson  to  buy  them  of  the  Creeks  as  slaves.  This  nefarious 
scheme  failed  of  consummation  through  the  firmness  and 
manliness  of  Generals  Gaines  and  Taylor  of  the  regular  army, 
who  maintained  in  the  courts  that  they  were  prisoners  of  war, 
and  entitled  to  be  treated  as  such.  The  army  freed  them. 
Some  years  afterward,  Watson  claimed  compensation  for  his 
loss,  and  Congress  authorized  the  payment. 

"Is  not  our  whole  political  system,"  asked  John  Quincy 
Adams  at  this  period,  "irresistibly  tending  to  turn  upon  the 
hinge  of  slavery  alone?  I  am  deeply  apprehensive  that  it  is. ' '  l 

The  slaveholders  complained  that  not  only  was  the  North 
attacking  .their  character  and  disturbing  their  peace  and  se 
curity,  but  it  was  evading  the  terms  of  the  compact  between 
the  two  sections  in  not  aiding  in  the  return  of  fugitives.  In 
that  famous  speech  made  in  January,  1838,  Mr.  Calhoun  had, 
with  dramatic  effect,  introduced  an  incident  the  particulars  of 
which  had  that  day  been  received  by  mail  from  Georgia :  A 
slave  was  kidnapped  by  some  persons  in  the  port  of  Savannah, 
and  taken  in  a  trading  vessel  to  the  State  of  Maine.  The  re 
quisition  of  the  Governor  of  Georgia  for  the  surrender  of  the 
officers  and  owners  of  the  vessel  was  disregarded  by  the  Gov 
ernor  of  Maine.  Thereupon  the  Governor  of  Georgia  brought 
the  subject  before  the  Legislature,  which  body  adopted  reso 
lutions  relating  to  it,  one  of  which  provided  that  if  the  sur 
render  of  the  accused  were  not  made  after  another  and  more 
solemn  demand,  the  people  of  Georgia  should  be  called 

1  Correspondence  in  Charles  Hammond  and  his  Relations  to  Henry  Clay  and 
John  Quincy  Adams,  p.  70. 


Intolerance  and  Reaction  after  1830        51 

together  in  their  high  sovereign  capacity,  to  take  the  subject 
into  consideration.  As  Mr.  Calhoun  said,  this  was  no  idle 
menace.  "The  country  was  reposing  on  a  volcano."  The 
South  had  kept  its  agreements  made  at  the  time  of  the  adop 
tion  of  the  Constitution,  and  during  the  administration  of 
Washington.  The  commercial  system,  the  assumption  of  the 
State  debts,  the  United  States  Bank,  the  tariffs,  were  all  sec 
tional  measures  for  the  advantage  of  the  North.2  Had  not  the 
North  found  in  the  South  its  best  market  for  its  provisions  and 
manufacture^?  Had  it  not  enjoyed  the  unrestricted  carrying 
trade?  Did^not  good  faith  call  for  a  reciprocity — such  re 
ciprocity  as  ga\e  security  to  the  South? 

The  gravamo^  of  the  complaint  of  the  North  was,  that 
slavery  was  bein^nationalized.  If  the  South  had  kept  within 
the  solemn  engagements  and  covenants  of  the  Constitution; 
if  it  had  not  attempted  to  extend  the  protection  of  the  national 
government,  while  at  the  same  time  denying  the  right  of  dis 
cussion  and  demanding  that  citizens  of  the  Northern  States 
should  be  delivered  up  to  its  vengeance,  opposition  to  slavery 
in  the  original  States  and  even  in  the  District  of  Columbia 
would  have  amounted  to  nothing. 

It  was  remarked  that  slave  territory  was  being  added  to 
strengthen  the  political  power  of  the  South,  which,  under  the 
three-fifths  representation  for  slaves,  already  had  an  unfair 
advantage;  that  Southern  men  had  for  fifty  years  filled  most 
of  the  important  political  stations;  that  vast  sums  of  money 
had  been  paid  out  of  the  national  treasury  to  reimburse  slave 
holders  for  their  escaped  human  property ;  that  while  in  the 
treaty  of  1814  with  Great  Britain,  which  was  the  law  of  the 
land,  the  United  States  had  assented  to  the  proposition  that 

The  traffic  in  slaves  is  irreconcilable  with  the  principles  of 
humanity  and  justice"  yet  we  protected  the  traffic  in  the 
District  of  Columbia  and  in  the  States,  and  employed  the 

1  The  officers  of  the  vessel  said  the  slave  had  secreted  himself  on  board  without 
their  knowledge  or  agency — was  a  stowaway — and  that  he  had  not  been  enticed 
away. 

2  The  Sectional  Controversy,  by  William  C.  Fowler,  LL.D. 


52  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

influence  of  the  Department  of  State  to  obtain  from  foreign 
governments  compensation  for  slaves  escaping  upon  the  high 
seas,  thus  placing  our  Republic  in  a  humiliating  light  before 
the  world ;  that  a  large  navy,  three-fourths  of  whose  officers 
were  from  the  slave  States,  was  kept  up  at  great  expense 
chiefly  to  protect  Southern  naval  stations  from  sudden  irrup 
tion  1 ;  that  in  the  distribution  of  the  surplus  revenue  by  the 
act  of  1836  the  South,  with  a  free  population  of  3,789,674,  re 
ceived  $16,058,082,  while  the  North,  with  a  free  population 
of  7,003,229,  received  but  $21,410,777,  the  same  having  been 
made  not  on  a  pro  rata  basis  of  distribution,  but  in  proportion 
to  the  representation  of  the  several  States,  whereby  the  South 
received  for  her  slave  population  more  than  four  millions  of 
dollars;  that  the  same  inequality  in  appointments  and  com 
pensation  had  even  invaded  the  Supreme  Court,  which  should 
be  free  from  sectional  bias a ;  that  the  South  was  invading  the 
North,  in  that  the  power  of  business  relations  was  used  as  a 
threat  to  coerce  opinion  to  support  the  system  of  slavery  with 
its  evils,  and  that  under  the  mischievous  financial  policy  of  the 
Jackson-Van  Buren  administrations,  New  York  and  other 
Northern  cities  had  lost  one  hundred  millions  of  dollars  in 
Southern  debts.3 

1  First  Report  of  Judge  Upshur,  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  to  Congress. 

8  Appendix  to  Cincinnati  Address,  by  Salmon  P.  Chase,  1845. 

z  Pennsylvania  Address,  by  Charles  Dexter  Cleveland,  1844.  The  slave  State 
debts  to  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  amounted  to  about  $20,000,000.  It  was 
estimated  that  the  merchants  of  Philadelphia  lost  in  the  Southern  States,  from 
1834  to  1839,  nearly  $30,000,000,  and  that  in  1844  the  indebtedness  of  the  slave 
States  to  the  free  States  was  not  less  than  $300,000,000.  "  Neckar,"  in  the 
Courier  and  Enquirer,  upon  authority  considered  indisputable,  said  the  debt  due 
to  New  York  from  the  cotton  States  alone  was  more  than  sufficient  to  pay  the 
mercantile  balance  due  by  the  United  States  to  Europe. 


CHAPTER   III 

THE     SLAVERS     AMISTAD,     ENTERPRISE,      CREOLE — HOUSE 

CENSURES   OF  ADAMS   AND  GIDDINGS— 

ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS 

IN  the  month  of  April,  1839,  a  number  of  young  Africans 
were  seized  and  carried  on  board  the  Tecora,  a  Portuguese 
slave  ship  which  set  sail  for  Havana.  Here  by  the  conni 
vance  of  the  Governor-General,  such  of  them  as  survived  the 
horrors  of  the  middle  passage  were  unlawfully  sold  in  the  barra- 
coons  to  Jose  Ruiz  and  Pedro  Montez,  who  transferred  them  to 
the  schooner  Amistad,  intending  to  convey  them  toanother  port 
in  Cuba.  When  four  days  out  the  Africans  under  the  lead  of 
Cinque  killed  the  captain  and  cook  and  took  possession  of  the 
vessel.  As  they  were  near  the  coast  they  landed  the  crew  and 
three  passengers.  They  spared  the  lives  of  Ruiz  and  Montez, 
on  condition  that  they  should  aid  in  steering  the  Amistad  for 
the  coast  of  Africa,  or  to  some  place  where  negro  slavery  was 
not  permitted  by  the  laws  of  the  country.  The  Spaniards  de 
ceived  the  negroes,  who  were  totally  ignorant  of  navigation, 
and  steered  the  Amistad  im  the  United  States;  and  after  two 
months  on  the  sea  she  arrived  off  Long  Island  on  the  26th  of 
August  and  anchored  within  half  a  mile  of  the  shore.  Cinque 
with  a  number  of  others  went  on  shore  to  procure  supplies  of 
water  and  provisions,  when  the  vessel  was  discovered  by  the 
United  States  brig  Washington.  Lieutenant  Gedney,  com 
manding  the  Washington,  assisted  by  his  officers  and  crew, 
took  possession  of  the  Amistad  and  of  the  Africans  on  shore 
and  in  the  vessel,  and  carried  them  into  Connecticut,  and 

53 


54  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

there  libelled  the  vessel,  the  cargo  and  the  negroes  for  sal 
vage.  By  what  law  did  Lieutenant  Gedney  make  prize  of  a 
foreign  vessel  in  time  of  peace?  By  what  right  arrest  men  as 
free  as  himself  on  the  soil  of  New  York  and  carry  them  to 
another  State?  Such  illegal  acts  illustrate  the  temper  of  the 
times  in  all  that  concerned  black  men. 

The  current  accounts  of  these  events  in  the  press  take  their 
color  from  the  popular  prejudice.  Thus  one  reporter  speaks 
of  Ruiz  and  Montez,  who  were  guilty  under  the  laws  of  their 
own  country  of  a  most  heinous  crime,  as  the  "two  Spanish 
gentlemen."  His  pen  has  preserved  the  scenes  of  that  day. 

Jose  Ruiz  is  a  very  gentlemanly  and  intelligent  young  man,  and 
speaks  English  fluently.  He  was  the  owner  of  most  of  the  slaves 
and  cargo  which  he  was  conveying  to  his  estate  on  the  island  of 
Cuba.  Pedro  Montez  is  about  fifty  years  of  age,  and  is  the  owner 
of  three  of  the  slaves.  Both  of  them,  as  may  be  naturally  supposed, 
are  most  unfeignedly  thankful  for  their  deliverance.  Jose  Ruiz  is 
the  most  striking  instance  of  complacency  and  unalloyed  delight 
we  ever  witnessed,  and  it  is  not  strange,  since  only  yesterday  his 
sentence  was  pronounced  by  the  chief  of  the  buccaneers,  and  his 
death  song  chanted  by  the  grim  crew  who  gathered  with  uplifted 
sabres  around  his  devoted  head,  which,  as  well  as  his  arms,  bears 
the  scars  of  several  wounds  inflicted  at  the  time  of  the  murder  of  the 
ill-fated  captain  and  crew.  He  sat  smoking  his  Havana  on  the 
deck,  and  to  judge  from  the  martyr-like  serenity  of  his  countenance 
his  emotions  are  such  as  rarely  stir  the  heart  of  man.  .  .  . 
Every  now  and  then  he  clasps  his  hands,  and  with  uplifted  eyes 
gives  thanks  to  the  "Holy  Virgin  "  who  had  led  him  out  of  all  his 
troubles.1 

The  interesting  young  man  and  the  romantic  surroundings 
won  the  sympathy  of  the  reporter.  That  the  Spaniard  should 
violate  both  natural  and  statute  law,  that  he  was  in  fact  a  rob 
ber,  did  not  enter  into  consideration.  The  blacks  who  had 
been  seized  in  their  homes  and  put  to  torture  on  shipboard  for 
months,  and  who  had  bravely  redeemed  themselves  from 

1  New  London  Gazette,  Aug.  28,  1839. 


Slave  Ship  Controversies  55 

bondage,  were  "buccaneers."  They  had  never  heard  of  the 
Prince  of  Peace  or  of  his  Mother.  They  were  heathen. 
Nothing  relating  to  them  struck  the  imagination  or  invited 
sympathy.  Another  representative  of  the  press  has  described 
them  for  us : 

They  are  just  what  in  the  South  would  be  called  a  likely  lot  of 
young  negroes;  very  few  of  them  seeming  to  be  much  if  anything 
over  twenty.  Jinqua,  or  Cinque,  is  of  superior  appearance  to  the 
rest;  indeed  he  may  be  called  a  handsome  negro — with  a  well- 
formed  head,  symmetrical  features,  and  an  expression  both  intelli 
gent  and  agreeable.  When  conversing  with  his  fellows  or  trying  to 
converse  with  the  white  folks  by  signs,  his  look  is  extremely  animated 
and  cheerful,  and  he  gesticulates  with  great  rapidity  and  variety. 
When  not  so  occupied  his  expression  is  serious,  even  melancholy, 
which  I  suppose  is  not  to  be  wondered  at.  When  he  was  brought 
into  the  jail  yesterday,  the  others  who  had  been  separated  from  him 
for  twenty-four  hours,  set  up  a  great  shouting  and  crowded  about 
him  with  vehement  rejoicings.1 

In  October  two  native  Africans  who  could  speak  both  Eng 
lish  and  the  language  of  the  prisoners  were  found  by  the  com 
mittee  of  benevolent  gentlemen  who  took  upon  themselves 
the  trouble  of  protecting  the  rights  of  the  captives — the  gov 
ernment  was  engaged  in  the  other  interest — in  the  British  brig 
Buzzard,  in  New  York  harbor. 

We  called  with  them  at  the  prison  this  morning  [wrote  one  of  the 
committee]  while  the  African  captives  were  at  breakfast.  The 
marshal  objected  to  the  entrance  of  the  interpreters  until  the  break 
fast  was  over,  but  one  of  the  captives  coming  to  the  door  and  finding 
a  countryman  who  could  talk  in  their  own  language,  took  hold  of 
him  and  literally  dragged  him  in.  Such  a  scene  ensued  as  you  may 
better  conceive  than  I  describe.  Breakfast  was  forgotten:  all 
crowded  around  the  two  men,  and  all  talking  as  fast  as  possible. 
The  children  hugged  one  another  with  transport.3 

1  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser. 

8  Journal  of  Commerce.  There  were  two  girls  about  thirteen  years  of  age  and 
a  small  boy.  Through  the  interpreters  they  were  able  to  tell  their  story  :  "  They 


56  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

The  emotions  here  would  seem  to  be  very  like  those  at 
tributed  to  the  breast  of  the  gentlemanly  Ruiz  by  the  ob 
servant  reporter.  But  Cinque  and  his  fellows  were  in  prison. 
Ruiz  and  Montez  walked  abroad  free,  received  congratulations 
and  smoked  their  fragrant  Havanas. 

Don  Jose  Ruiz  and  Don  Pedro  Montez  assured  the  public 
that  the  "gallant"  act  of  Lieutenant  Gedney  would  be  duly 
appreciated  by  "our  most  gracious  sovereign,  her  Majesty  the 
Queen  of  Spain."  This  assurance  would  seem  to  have  some 
basis.  At  any  rate  they  were  not  sent  in  irons  to  Cuba  to  be 
tried  for  violating  the  laws  of  her  most  gracious  Majesty,  but 
at  the  instance  of  the  Spanish  minister  the  executive  authority 
of  the  United  States  directed  the  people's  district  attorney  to 
appear  in  their  behalf  before  court  and  claim  the  Africans  as 
their  property.  The  Spanish  minister  in  the  name  of  his  gov 
ernment  demanded  that  the  Africans  should  be  sent  back  to 
Cuba  and  delivered  up  to  the  authorities  there  to  be  punished 
for  regaining  their  freedom,  and  the  whole  power  of  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States  was  employed  to  accomplish  that 
result. 

The  Attorney-General,  in  a  written  opinion,  which  was 
adopted  by  the  President  and  Cabinet,  held  that  passports 
from  the  Governor-General  of  Cuba  as  to  the  shipment  of  the 
negroes,  which  Ruiz  produced  (and  which  were  claimed  to  be 
irregular  and  fraudulent),  were  conclusive  evidence  of  title  to 
property,  and  on  that  he  assumed  that  the  Africans  were 
slaves,  although  it  was  admitted  by  the  Spanish  claimants  that 
they  had  not  been  landed  at  the  point  of  destination  before 
they  regained  their  liberty.  Slavery  can  exist  only  by  force. 
In  this  case  the  force  was  overcome,  and  the  parties  changed 
places.  The  Africans  came  into  possession  of  the  person  and 
property  of  the  Spaniards  by  lawful  capture.  They  had  a 
single  object  in  view.  That  object  was  their  deliverance  from 

were  two  moons  on  the  ocean  from  Africa  to  Havana.  Vessel  crowded  and  many 
died— were  tight  together,  two  and  two,  chained  together  by  hands  and  feet, 
night  and  day,  until  near  Havana."  Ruiz  and  Montez  treated  them  with  cruelty 
when  they  were  on  the  A  mis  tad. 


Slave  Ship  Controversies  57 

oppression,  from  unlawful  bondage.  They  owed  no  allegiance 
to  Spain,  and  no  service  to  Ruiz  and  Montez.  They  were 
on  board  the  Amistad  by  constraint.  When  freed  from  the 
fetters  that  bound  them,  they  sought,  as  was  their  right,  to 
return  to  their  kindred  and  their  homes.  In  all  that  they  had 
done  they  were  guilty  of  no  crime,  for  which  they  could  be  held 
responsible  as  robbers  or  pirates.  If  white,  their  rights  would 
have  been  instantly  recognized;  the  Amzstad and  cargo  would 
have  remained  their  lawful  prize. 

The  Attorney-General  advised  the  President  to  issue  his 
order,  directed  to  the  marshal  in  whose  custody  were  the 
vessel,  cargo  and  Africans,  to  deliver  the  same  to  such  persons 
as  the  Spanish  minister  might  designate  to  receive  them.  In 
a  Spanish  court  the  negroes,  if  guilty  of  crime,  could  be  tried, 
or  might  establish  their  right  to  freedom.  The  Spanish  min 
ister  could  not  understand  why  the  President  did  not,  in  ac 
cordance  with  this  opinion,  issue  his  executive  mandate  at 
once,  and  send  the  Africans  to  the  Governor-General  of  Cuba. 
But  all  parties  were  in  a  court  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
executive  department  could  not  properly  interfere  to  prevent 
a  hearing.  With  the  minister's  demand  that  a  vessel  should 
be  provided  to  transport  the  negroes  to  Cuba,  when  delivered 
up  by  the  court,  the  President  complied  with  indecent  haste. 

About  four  days  before  the  time  appointed  for  the  delivery 
of  the  opinion  of  the  court,  which  the  executive  confidently 
expected  would  be  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  the  ad 
ministration,  a  public  vessel  anchored  off  New  Haven,  the 
commander  of  which  bore  an  order  signed  by  "M.  Van  Buren" 
and  countersigned  by  "John  Forsyth,  Secretary  of  State," 
addressed  to  the  marshal,  directing  him  to  deliver  over  to 
Lieut.  John  S.  Paine,  of  the  United  States  Navy,  and  aid  in 
conveying  on  board  the  schooner  Grampus,  "all  the  negroes 
in  his  custody,  under  process  now  pending  before  the  Circuit 
Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  District  of  Connecticut."1 

The  district  attorney,  on  discovering  an  error  in  this  order, 
despatched  a  messenger  to  Washington,  who  made  the  trip  in 

1  This  was  dated  at  Washington  January  7,  1840. 


58  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

one  day  (then  a  great  achievement),  to  have  the  proper  correc 
tion  made.  The  occasion  of  this  haste  was  that  the  Secretary 
of  State,  at  the  instigation  of  the  Spanish  minister  and  with 
the  approval  of  the  President,  had  instructed  the  agents  of  the 
government  to  act  with  such  despatch  in  putting  the  Africans 
on  board  the  Grampus  as  to  prevent  their  friends  from  getting 
a  writ  of  liabeas  corpus. 

When  despatching  his  special  messenger  the  district  attorney 
had  said  to  the  Secretary  of  State:  "The  marshal  wishes  me 
to  inquire  whether  in  the  event  of  a  decree  requiring  him  to 
release  the  negroes,  or  in  case  of  an  appeal  by  the  adverse 
party,  it  is  expected  the  executive  warrant  will  be  executed?  " 
And  Mr.  Forsyth  replied  in  these  words : 

With  reference  to  the  inquiry  from  the  marshal,  I  have  to  state, 
by  direction  of  the  President,  that,  if  the  decision  of  the  court  is 
such  as  is  anticipated,  the  order  of  the  President  is  to  be  carried 
into  execution,  unless  an  appeal  shall  actually  have  been  inter 
posed.  You  are  not  to  take  it  for  granted  that  it  will  be  interposed. 

There  is  no  mistaking  the  meaning  of  this  language.  The 
negroes  were  to  be  put  on  board  the  Grampus  instantly. 

But  the  court  disappointed  these  confident  expectations, 
and  Lieutenant  Paine,  doubtless  to  his  great  satisfaction,  was 
relieved  of  the  duty  of  making  a  trip  to  Cuba.  The  decision 
of  Judge  Judson  was,  that  Ruiz  and  Montez  had  established 
no  title  to  the  Africans,  as  they  had  been  imported  from  Africa 
in  violation  of  the  laws  of  Spain;  that  the  demand  of  restora 
tion  to  have  the  question  tried  in  Cuba,  made  by  the  Spanish 
minister,  could  not  be  complied  with,  as  by  their  own  laws  it 
was  certain  they  could  not  enslave  these  Africans,  and  there 
fore  could  not  properly  demand  them  for  trial;  and  that  the 
Africans  should  be  delivered  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1819,  to  be  transported  to 
Africa.1 

Free  and  yet  not  free.     By  direction  of  the  Secretary  of 

1  Nilcs's  National  Register,  vol.  Ivii.,  p.  352. 


Slave  Ship  Controversies  59 

State  the  case  was  carried  up  to  the  Supreme  Court  by  the 
government  of  the  United  States,  for  the  Spanish  minister. 

The  hearing,  which  was  towards  the  close  of  February, 
1841,  was  looked  forward  to  with  great  anxiety  by  the  thought 
ful  of  both  sections.  Mr.  Adams  volunteered  to  appear  as 
counsel  for  the  Africans.  With  him  was  associated  Governor 
Baldwin  of  Connecticut,  who  had  so  ably  argued  the  questions 
involved  before  the  District  and  Circuit  Courts.  The  scene  at 
the  trial  was  calculated  to  make  a  deep  impression,— ''the  vast 
audience,  the  solemn  bearing  and  dignity  of  the  court  and 
officers,  all  conspired  to  render  the  proceeding  one  of  high 
moral  sublimity." 

After  Mr.  Adams  had  spoken  one  day,  the  proceedings 
were  interrupted  by  the  sudden  death  of  Judge  Barbour,  who 
had  been  present  at  the  hearing  of  the  case.  On  the  1st  of 
March,  Mr.  Adams  resumed  speaking  with  a  power  and  elo 
quence  remarkable  even  for  him.  His  arraignment  of  the 
Secretary  of  State,  the  Attorney-General  and  the  Spanish 
minister  was  very  severe.  He  had  sought  to  avoid  this  duty, 
as  his  personal  relations  with  these  gentlemen  were  cordial,  by 
requesting  the  President  to  withdraw  the  appeal  and  let  the 
judgment  of  the  lower  courts  stand.  Mr.  Van  Buren  refused. 
The  result  was  such  an  indictment  of  his  administration  as  he 
must  have  regretted  in  his  retirement. 

The  court,  which  had  a  majority  of  members  from  the  slave 
States,  after  due  consideration,  on  the  Qth  March,  rendered  a 
decision  sustaining  that  of  the  District  and  Circuit  Courts  of 
Connecticut  in  every  particular  save  one,  namely,  that  which 
ordered  the  negroes  to  be  delivered  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States  to  be  transported  to  Africa,  which  was  reversed. 
The  Africans  were  declared  to  be  free,  and  the  Circuit  Court 
was  instructed  accordingly.1  Justice  Story  delivered  the  opin 
ion  of  the  court.  Thus  ended  this  highly  interesting  and  im 
portant  case. 

1  The  full  text  of  the  decision  may  be  found  in  15  Peters,  and  in  Niles,  vol. 
lx.,  pp.  40-42.  Three  years  later  an  attempt  was  made  to  appropriate  $70,000 
from  the  public  treasury  for  the  benefit  of  Ruiz  and  Montez,  but  it  failed. 


60  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Pending  the  hearing  of  the  Amist 'ad  case,  the  Spanish  min 
ister  had  expressed  satisfaction  with  resolutions  adopted  by 
the  Senate  at  the  instance  of  Mr.  Calhoun  on  the  I5th  of 
April,  1840,  which  set  forth  the  ex-territorial  jurisdiction  of 
a  State  on  the  high  seas  in  time  of  peace;  and  declared  that 
when  a  ship  or  vessel  should  be  forced,  by  stress  of  weather  or 
other  unavoidable  cause,  into  the  port  of  a  friendly  power, 
such  ex-territorial  jurisdiction  would  be  extended  over  the 
"  vessel,  cargo  and  persons  on  board  with  their  property,  and 
all  the  rights  belonging  to  their  personal  relations." 

These  principles  were  supported  by  Mr.  Calhoun  in  an  argu 
ment  displaying  great  logical  power  as  applied  to  the  con 
tention  of  the  British  government  in  the  case  of  the  brig 
Enterprise,  which  in  1835,  while  engaged  in  the  coast  slave 
trade,  was  forced  by  stress  of  weather  into  Port  Hamilton, 
Bermuda,  where  the  slaves  were  protected  by  the  local  authori 
ties  in  the  assertion  of  their  freedom.  Compensation  for  the 
owners  had  been  demanded  by  our  government  in  this  case,  as 
in  the  cases  of  the  Comet  and  the  Encomium,  which  had  occurred 
previously,  and  had  been  refused  by  the  British  government, 
although  allowed  in  the  other  two  cases.  The  reason  given 
for  the  difference  was,  that  "before  the  Enterprise  arrived  at 
Bermuda,  slavery  had  been  abolished  in  the  British  Empire," 
and  that  "the  negroes  on  board  the  Enterprise  had,  by  enter 
ing  within  the  British  jurisdiction,  acquired  rights  which  the 
local  courts  were  bound  to  protect." 

Mr.  Calhoun  admitted  that  if  they  had  entered  voluntarily, 
they  would  have  been  subjected  to  the  laws  of  Great  Britain, 
and  would  have  been  entitled  to  freedom ;  but  they  entered 
from  necessity,  and  therefore  the  law  of  nations  as  to  property 
so  placed  by  stress  of  circumstances,  Mr.  Calhoun  contended, 
applied.1  He  charged  the  British  government  with  incon 
sistency  in  allowing  compensation  in  two  cases  and  refusing  it 
in  the  third.  He  could  see  no  difference  in  principle.  The 
claim  in  each  case  was  for  compensation  for  loss  of  property. 
The  statement  of  the  British  representative  "that  there  is  a 

1  Speech,  March  13,  1840.      Works,  vol.  iii.,  p.  469. 


Slave  Ship  Controversies  61 

distinction  between  the  laws  bearing  on  the  personal  liberty 
of  man,  and  laws  bearing  on  the  property  which  man  may 
claim  in  irrational  animals  or  inanimate  things,"  became  the 
impregnable  basis  of  British  argument  in  all  future  contentions. 

Shortly  after  this  a  case  arose  in  which  Mr.  Webster,  as 
Secretary  of  State,1  upheld  Mr.  Calhoun's  propositions,  and 
placed  the  government  of  the  United  States  in  the  position  of 
squarely  contending  that  slaves  were  recognized  as  property 
by  the  Constitution,  and  of  defending  that  traffic  in  man  which 
the  two  nations  in  1814  solemnly  denounced  as  "irreconcilable 
with  the  principles  of  humanity  and  justice."  Mr.  Webster 
appears  to  better  advantage  in  his  correspondence  with  Lord 
Ashburton,  wherein  he  states  the  principles  of  international 
law. 

The  case  is  that  of  the  Creole,  an  American  brig,  which 
sailed  from  Richmond,  October  27,  1841,  with  a  cargo  of  one 
hundred  and  thirty-five  slaves  for  the  New  Orleans  market. 
Of  this  number  was  a  man  named  Madison  Washington,  a 
fugitive  slave  who  had  returned  from  Canada  to  Virginia  to 
secure  the  release  of  his  wife,  had  been  retaken  and  sold  for 
transportation.  He  made  confidants  of  eighteen  others,  and 
on  the  7th  of  November,  at  their  head,  attacked  the  crew,  and 
after  a  struggle  in  which  the  captain  was  wounded  and  a  slave 
trader  killed,  obtained  possession  of  the  vessel.  Washington 
commanded  the  mate  to  steer  for  Liberia,  but  on  being  in 
formed  that  their  provisions  and  water  were  insufficient  for 
such  a  voyage,  he  changed  the  destination  to  Nassau.  There 
all  of  the  negroes  with  the  exception  of  the  nineteen,  with  the 
aid  of  the  local  authorities,  obtained  their  freedom.  The  sur 
render  of  Washington  and  his  companions  engaged  in  the  cap 
ture  of  the  vessel  was  demanded  by  the  captain,  to  be  brought 
back  to  the  United  States  for  trial.  The  authorities  refused, 
but  imprisoned  the  men  until  the  wishes  of  the  home  govern 
ment  should  be  known. 

This  case  created  great  excitement  in  the  South,  and  re 
ceived  the  prompt  attention  of  our  government.  It  is  one  of 

1  Correspondence  with  Edward  Everett,  American  Minister  in  London. 


62  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

considerable  interest  in  the  history  of  the  slavery  controversy, 
as  it  involved  the  question  of  property  in  man;  whether  the 
flag  of  the  United  States  extended  the  municipal  law  of  Vir 
ginia  on  the  high  seas  beyond  the  territorial  limits  of  the 
State ;  and  whether  international  law  protected  the  slave  trade. 
When  the  subject  came  up  for  discussion  in  the  Senate,  Mr. 
King  of  Alabama  spoke  of  it  "as  this  great  and  paramount 
question."  Mr.  Barrow  of  Louisiana  said  that  " Great  Britain 
had  undertaken  to  draw  a  distinction  between  property  in 
slaves  and  other  property,  goods,  wares  and  merchandise," 
and  unless  the  government  secured  protection  under  the  law 
of  nations,  they  would  be  compelled  to  fit  out  cruisers  to  de 
stroy  Nassau  and  other  similar  ports.1 

Mr.  Webster,  in  his  correspondence  with  Lord  Ashburton, 
presented  the  American  view  of  the  application  of  inter 
national  law  to  this  and  similar  cases.  He  disclaimed  on 
behalf  of  the  United  States  any  purpose  to  introduce  a  new 
principle  into  the  law  of  nations.  They  required  only  an 
exact  observance  of  the  injunctions  of  that  code  as  understood 
in  modern  times.  The  maritime  law  was  full  of  instances  of 
the  application  of  "that  great  and  practical  rule  which  de 
clares  that  that  which  is  the  clear  result  of  necessity  ought  to 
draw  after  it  no  penalty  and  no  hazard."  He  then  affirms  in 
the  strongest  terms  the  ex-territorial  rights  of  vessels  entering 
friendly  ports,  instancing  the  rule  applied  to  merchant  vessels 
engaged  in  commerce  in  support  of  those  rights.  "A  ship 
though  at  anchor  in  a  foreign  harbor  preserves  its  jurisdiction 
and  its  laws."  For  any  unlawful  acts  done  by  her  while  thus 
lying  in  port,  and  for  all  contracts  entered  into,  she  would 
be  answerable  to  the  laws  of  the  place.2  It  would  not  be 
claimed  that  if  a  vessel  of  necessity  entered  a  foreign  port, 
the  local  law  would  "so  attach  to  the  vessel  as  to  affect  exist 
ing  rights  of  property  between  persons  on  board,  whether  aris 
ing  from  contract  or  otherwise."  "The  local  law  in  these 
cases  [slave  ships]  dissolves  no  obligations  or  relation  lawfully 
entered  into  or  lawfully  existing  according  to  the  laws  of  the 

Congressional  Debates.  2  Works •,  vol.  vi.,  p.  306. 


Slave  Ship  Controversies  63 

ship's  country."  Marriages  were  frequently  celebrated  in  one 
country  in  a  manner  not  lawful  in  another;  but  their  validity 
could  not  be  questioned  if  the  parties  should  visit  a  country 
in  which  marriages  were  required  to  be  celebrated  in  another 
form. 

It  may  be  said  that,  in  such  instances,  personal  relations  are 
founded  in  contract  and  therefore  to  be  respected;  but  that  the 
relation  of  master  and  slave  is  not  founded  in  contract,  and  there 
fore  is  to  be  respected  only  by  the  law  of  the  place  which  recog 
nizes  it.  Whoever  so  reasons  encounters  the  authority  of  the  whole 
body  of  public  law  from  Grotius  down ;  because  there  are  numerous 
instances  in  which  the  law  itself  presumes  or  implies  contracts;  and 
prominent  among  those  instances  is  the  very  relation  which  we  are 
now  considering,  and  which  relation  is  holden  by  law  to  draw  after 
it  mutuality  of  obligation. 

This  was  pushing  the  argument  of  the  slaveholder  to  the 
very  extreme.  As  slavery  existed  by  the  law  of  force,  how 
could  there  exist  mutuality  of  obligation? 

As  to  the  rule  of  English  law :  When  a  slave  comes  within 
the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  England  he  ceases  to  be  a  slave, 
because  the  law  of  England  positively  and  notoriously  pro 
hibits  and  forbids  the  existence  of  such  a  relation  between 
man  and  man. 

But  it  does  not  mean  that  English  authorities,  with  this  rule  of 
English  law  in  their  hands,  may  enter  where  the  jurisdiction  of 
another  nation  is  acknowledged  to  exist,  and  there  destroy  rights, 
obligations  and  interests  lawfully  existing  under  the  authority 
of  such  other  nation.  No  such  construction  and  no  such  effect 
can  be  rightfully  given  to  the  British  law.1 

The  government  of  the  United  States  could  not  consent  to 
such  construction,  or  to  the  exercise  of  any  such  power.  It 
was  not  expected  that  slaves  escaping  to  British  territory 
would  be  restored.  But  slaves  on  board  of  American  vessels 

1  Works,  vol.  vi.,  p.  309. 


64  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

lying  in  British  waters  were  not  within  the  exclusive  jurisdic 
tion  of  England,  or  under  the  exclusive  operation  of  English 
law;  and  this  made  the  distinction  between  the  cases.1 

The  British  government  kept  that  right  in  view,  however, 
and  also  held  to  the  principle  of  ex-territoriality  in  all  con 
tentions  with  other  governments  relating  to  escaping  slaves.2 
In  the  end  that  government  paid  the  claims  under  the  follow 
ing  circumstances :  During  the  administration  of  Mr.  Fillmore 
the  two  governments  entered  into  an  agreement  to  submit  all 
disputed  claims  existing  between  them  to  arbitrators,  and  in 
case  of  their  disagreement  an  umpire  was  to  be  selected.  The 
two  arbitrators  failing  to  agree,  submitted  to  an  umpire 
the  claims  for  loss  of  slaves  on  board  the  Enterprise  and  the 
Hermora,  who  decided  in  favor  of  the  United  States.  "Thus 
did  the  resolutions  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  for  which  neither  Mr. 
Webster  nor  any  Northern  Whig  dared  vote,  in  the  short 
space  of  twelve  years  become  a  part  of  international  law  so  far 
as  concerned  the  relations  of  England  and  the  United  States,"  3 
despite  the  solemn  declaration  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent. 

On  the  25th  of  January,  1842,  a  contest  was  begun  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  the  most  remarkable  in  some  re 
spects  in  the  history  of  that  body, — a  contest,  the  result  of 
which  was  the  abandonment  of  the  policy  of  suppression,  and 
the  re-establishment  of  the  rights  of  petition  and  freedom  of 
discussion.  The  political  campaign  of  1840  had  given  the 
Whigs  in  the  Twenty-seventh  Congress  a  majority  of  seven  in 
the  Senate  and  of  forty  in  the  House.  John  White  of  Ken 
tucky,  an  able  and  fair-minded  man,  was  elected  Speaker  of 
the  House,  which  convened  in  special  session  May  31,  1841, 
and  he  gave  early  evidence  of  his  broad-mindedness  by 

1  Works,  vol.  vi,  p.  311. 

2  A  controversy  arising  with  Turkey  as  to  the  right  of  a  British  officer  to  give 
protection  to  a  slave  escaping  to  his  vessel  in  Turkish  waters,  the  subject  was  re 
ferred  to  commissioners,  who  agreed  "  that  a  British  officer  could  not  lawfully  be 
called  upon  to  give  up  a  fugitive  in  any  case  where  the  result  of  surrendering  him 
would  be  to  expose  him  to  ill  usage." — See  International  Law,  by  Henry  Sumner 
Maine,  p.  88. 

3Giddings,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  380. 


Censure  of  Adams  and  Giddings  65 

appointing  Mr.  Adams  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Affairs,  and  Mr.  Giddings  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Claims. 

The  2 ist  Rule  was  continued,  but  it  was  doomed  to  speedy 
extinction.  On  the  25th  of  January,  1842,  Mr.  Adams  pre= 
sented  a  petition  signed  by  forty-six  citizens  of  Haverhill, 
Mass.,  praying  Congress  to  adopt  immediate  measures  for  the 
peaceful  dissolution  of  the  Union,  for  these  reasons: 

First,  because  no  Union  can  be  agreeable  or  permanent  which 
does  not  present  prospects  of  reciprocal  benefits.  Second,  because 
a  vast  proportion  of  the  resources  of  one  section  of  the  Union  is 
annually  drained  to  sustain  the  views  and  course  of  another. 
Third,  because,  judging  from  the  history  of  past  nations,  if  the 
present  course  be  persisted  in  it  will  overwhelm  the  nation  in  utter 
destruction. 

Mr.  Adams  moved  to  refer  the  petition  to  a  select  committee 
of  nine  members,  with  instructions  to  report  an  answer  to  the 
petitioners,  showing  the  reasons  why  the  prayer  of  their  peti- 
tion  could  not  be  granted. 

If  the  hot-headed  members  of  the  South  had  voted  for  Mr. 
Adams's  motion,  the  incident  would  have  ended  with  a  report 
from  the  matchless  pen  of  Mr.  Adams  in  defence  of  the  Union 
on  broad  and  patriotic  grounds.  But  a  legislative  body  is  an 
aggregation  of  men  with  such  varieties  of  individual  character 
and  disposition  as  one  meets  with  in  every  walk  of  life.  At 
this  time,  blind,  unreasoning  passion  was  in  the  ascendant, 
and  a  fatal  mistake  was  made  by  the  leaders  which  placed  them 
at  the  mercy  of  the  Nestor  of  Quincy.  A  resolution  to  cen 
sure  him  was  promptly  introduced  by  Mr.  Gilmer  of  Virginia, 
which  was  on  the  table  when  the  House  adjourned.  At  a 
meeting  of  members  from  the  slave  States  held  that  night, 
Thomas  F.  Marshall,  a  Whig  member  from  Kentucky,  was 
prevailed  on  to  lead  the  assault  on  Mr.  Adams.  More  un 
gracious  service  never  fell  to  the  lot  of  man.  Mr.  Marshall 
was  a  nephew  of  the  great  Chief  Justice,  a  man  of  brilliant 
promise,  who  had  entered  Congress  with  an  ambition  to 

VOL.  I.— 5. 


66  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

distinguish  himself.  He  never  ceased  to  regret  his  temerity  on 
this  occasion.  He  spoke  with  surpassing  eloquence,  but  he  and 
all  the  others  engaged  in  the  assault  on  the  venerable  ex- 
President,  whose  great  experience,  extensive  learning  and  in 
tellectual  endowments  made  him  the  most  formidable  foe  of 
his  day,  were  mere  pigmies.1  The  best  description  of  the 
closing  scene  of  the  conflict  is  contained  in  a  letter  written 
by  Mr.  Giddings  to  his  wife,  February  6,  1842: 

Mr.  Adams  has  spoken  three  days.  He  has  won  the  friendship 
of  the  entire  Whig  party  of  the  North,  disarmed  the  Loco-focos  of 
a  portion  of  their  hatred,  conciliated  the  feelings  of  many,  and  has 
shown  up  the  manner  in  which  the  slave  interest  has  insidiously 
crept  into  our  whole  policy,  subsidized  our  papers,  poisoned  our 
literature,  invaded  the  sanctity  of  the  post-office,  degraded  our 
patriotism,  taxed  the  free  labor  of  the  North,  frightened  our  states 
men  and  controlled  the  nation.  He  is,  I  believe,  the  most  extra 
ordinary  man  living ;  but  I  cannot  attempt  a  description  either  of 
him  or  his  speech.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  he  has  made  the  entire 
South  tremble  before  him.  The  power  of  his  eloquence  has  ex 
ceeded  any  conception  which  I  have  heretofore  had  of  the  force  of 
words  or  logic.  He  has,  in  my  opinion,  opened  a  new  era  in  our 

1  In  the  preamble  to  his  resolutions,  Marshall  charged  Mr.  Adams  with  "  high 
treason."  In  his  defence,  Mr.  Adams  said  :  "  Now,  thank  God,  the  Constitution 
has  defined  high  treason,  and  it  was  not  left  for  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky, 
nor  for  his  puny  mind,  to  define  the  crime,  which  consists  solely  in  levying  war 
against  the  United  States,  or  lending  aid  and  comfort  to  their  enemies.  I  have 
presented  a  respectful  petition  from  my  constituents  ;  I  have  done  so  in  an  orderly 
manner,  in  the  regular  course  of  business,  in  obedience  to  my  sworn  duty,  and  the 
gentleman  calls  this  levying  war  !  Were  I  the  father  of  that  young  man  I  could 
feel  no  more  anxiety  for  his  welfare  than  I  do  now  ;  but  if  I  were  his  father  I 
would  advise  him  to  return  to  Kentucky  and  take  his  place  in  some  law  school, 
and  commence  the  study  of  that  profession  which  he  has  so  long  disgraced." 

"  Soon  after  the  scene  above  described,  he  [Marshall]  came  across  the  hall  and 
addressing  Hon.  John  Campbell,  of  South  Carolina,  who  was  sitting  near  the 
author,  said,  'Campbell,  I  wish  I  were  dead.'  'Oh,  no,'  says  Campbell  ;  'you 
are  too  sensitive.'  '  I  do,'  said  Marshall ;  '  I  would  rather  die  a  thousand  deaths 
than  again  to  encounter  that  old  man.'" — Giddings,  History  of  the  Rebellion, 
p.  166. 

Mr.  Adams,  who  liked  young  Marshall,  took  occasion  shortly  after  this  en 
counter  to  pay  him  a  compliment  in  the  House,  which  salved  his  wounded  vanity 
and  brought  about  a  renewal  of  friendly  intercourse.  See  Memoirs,  vol.  xi. 


Censure  of  Adams  and  Giddings  67 

political  history.  I  entertain  not  the  least  doubt  that  a  moral  revo 
lution  in  this  nation  will  take  its  date  from  this  session  of  Congress. 
I  am  confident  that  the  charm  of  the  slave  power  is  now  broken.— 
The  trial  has  excited  such  intense  interest  that  the  Senate  has  for  a 
day  or  two  been  almost  deserted.  Senators  sit  in  the  hall  during 
the  whole  day,  listening  to  Mr.  Adams.  Lord  Morpeth  has  been 
steadily  there  since  the  commencement  of  the  conflict,  a  silent  but 
interested  listener  during  each  day.1 

There  was  nothing  left  for  the  assailants  but  to  accept  a 
humiliating  defeat,  and,  on  a  motion  of  Mr.  Botts — consider 
ately  made  for  his  Southern  friends,  for  Mr.  Botts  supported 
Mr.  Adams, — the  whole  subject  was  laid  on  the  table  by  a  vote 
of  106  to  93.  The  trial  had  greatly  exhausted  Mr.  Adams 
physically,  but  apparently  not  intellectually.  He  found  great 
satisfaction  in  the  able  support  he  received  from  Mr.  Under 
wood  of  Kentucky,  Mr.  Arnold  of  Tennessee,  and  Mr.  Botts 
of  Virginia,  who  did  not  approve  of  the  policy  adopted  by  a 
majority  of  the  Southern  members. 

On  the  2 1st  of  March  following,  Mr.  Giddings  introduced  a 
series  of  resolutions  relating  to  the  case  of  the  Creole,  to  which 
the  attention  of  the  British  government  had  been  called  by 
Mr.  Everett,  the  American  minister,  and  which  had  received 
attention  in  the  Senate.  These  resolutions  affirmed  prin 
ciples  antagonistic  to  the  resolutions  of  Mr.  Calhoun  in  the 
case  of  the  brig  Enterprise,  which  had  been  fully  discussed ; 
but  because  of  opposite  principles,  and  because  justifying 
the  attempt  of  Madison  Washington  and  his  companions  to 
regain  their  liberty,  the  leaders  in  the  House  decided  there 
should  be  no  discussion  on  them,  and  that  a  vote  censuring 
their  author  should  be  passed  notwithstanding  he  had  with 
drawn  the  resolutions  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Fillmore.  Mr. 
Botts  was  the  leader  in  this  course  of  violence.  As  Virginia 
would  not  be  reached  in  the  call,  the  resolutions  he  drew  up 
were  presented  by  John  B.  Weller  of  Ohio,2  who  at  once 

1  Life  of  Joshua  R.  Giddings,  p.  no. 

2  Weller,  "the  rankest  Five-Points  Democrat  in  the  House." — Memoirs  of  Jc 
Q.  Adams,  vol.  xi.,  p.  192. 


68  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

moved  the  previous  question.  Giddings  had  no  opportunity 
of  being  heard  in  reply.1  The  resolution  was  adopted  by  a 
vote  of  125  to  69.  The  negative  included  the  entire  Whig 
delegation  and  seven  Democrats  from  the  free  States,  and 
Underwood  and  Pope  of  Kentucky. 

As  Mr.  Giddings  withdrew  from  the  hall  he  met  Mr.  Clay 
at  the  door,  who  extended  his  hand  to  him  and  with  character 
istic  manliness  thanked  him  for  the  firmness  with  which  he 
had  met  the  outrage  perpetrated  upon  him,  declaring  that  no 
man  would  ever  doubt  his  perfect  right  to  state  his  own  views 
against  the  slave  trade,  particularly  while  the  executive  and 
the  Senate  were  expressing  theirs  in  favor  of  it.a  Mr.  Gid 
dings  resigned  his  seat,  reported  to  his  constituents,  and 
within  five  weeks  was  in  his  seat  again,  having  been  re-elected 
by  upwards  of  thirty-four  hundred  majority,  and  instructed 
to  maintain  his  rights  in  the  House,  and  the  rights  of  his 
constituents. 

While  this  discussion  was  going  on  in  Congress  and  between 
the  Department  of  State  and  Great  Britain,  a  decision  was 
rendered  by  the  Supreme  Court,  which  incidentally  declared 
that  slavery  was  not  recognized  by  international  law,  while 
pronouncing  what  the  law  was,  so  far  as  it  governed  the  right 
of  the  recapture  of  fugitive  slaves.  This  decision  changed  the 
relations  of  State  and  national  governments  to  the  act  of 
1793  for  the  rendition  of  fugitives,  foreshadowed  the  legislation 
of  1850,  and  greatly  intensified  the  excitement  in  the  Northern 
States. 

Reference  was  made  above  to  the  prevalence  of  kidnapping 
in  the  border  States,  and  to  the  efforts  made  to  prevent  the 
crime  through  State  laws.  In  1826  Pennsylvania  passed  an  act 
for  the  punishment  of  kidnapping,  which  also  provided  for  the 
returning  of  fugitive  slaves.  In  1839  Edward  Prigg,  of  Mary 
land,  carried  out  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  a  colored 
woman,  Margaret  Morgan,  and  her  children,  who  had  fled 

1  An  Expos 2  of  the  Circumstances  which  Led  to  the  Resignation  of  the  Hon. 
Joshua  ft.  Giddings,  p.  34. 

'*  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  189. 


Fugitive  Slave  Cases  69 

from  servitude  in  1832,  and  delivered  them  to  Margaret  Ash- 
more,  claimant,  who  resided  in  Maryland.  Prigg  was  brought 
to  trial  and  convicted  of  violation  of  the  Pennsylvania  statute 
of  1826.  By  agreement  between  the  States  of  Pennsylvania 
and  Maryland,  the  case  was  carried  to  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States.  The  decision  of  the  court  was  rendered 
by  Justice  Story.1 

The  judgment  in  this  case  was:  that  the  Constitution  in 
the  clause  providing  that  fugitives  from  labor  shall  be  delivered 
up,  created  a  new  right  over  which  Congress  had  exclusive 
jurisdiction;  that  the  States  had  no  power  to  legislate  on  the 
subject,  to  qualify  or  regulate  it ;  that  therefore  the  act  of 
Pennsylvania  was  unconstitutional  and  void ;  that  the  clause 
in  the  Constitution  was  a  national  guarantee,  was  not  in  a 
State  constitution,  did  not  make  requisition  upon  any  State 
functionaries  or  any  State  action  to  carry  its  provisions  into 
effect,  and  the  States  could  not,  therefore,  be  compelled  to 
enforce  them3;  that  the  national  government  was  bound, 
through  its  own  proper  departments,  to  carry  into  effect  all 
the  rights  and  duties  imposed  upon  it  by  the  Constitution ; 
2nd  that  although  slavery  existed  by  municipal  law,  yet  by  the 
guarantee  of  the  Constitution  the  rights  of  the  owner  which 
he  had  in  his  own  State  over  his  fugitive  slave  were  extended 
to  every  other  State,  and  he  could  seize  and  recapture  his 
slave  wherever  he  might  be,  whenever  he  could  do  it  without 
any  breach  of  the  peace  or  any  illegal  violence.3  Would  not 
this  reasoning  also  justify  temporary  domicile  in  free  States 
with  slaves  ? 

Chief  Justice  Taney,  in  a  dissenting  opinion,  said:  "If  the 
State  authorities  are  absolved  from  all  obligation  to  protect 
their  right  [to  recapture],  and  may  stand  by  and  see  it  violated, 

1  "  In  the  case  between  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland,  I  delivered  the  opinion  at 
the  solicitation  of  my  brothers,  who  adopted  unanimously  my  first  draft." — Story 
before  Harvard  Law  School,  as  reported  in  the  diary  of  Rutherford  B.  Hayes,  while 
a  student. 

2  "  This  act  [1793],  therefore,  in  its  leading  provisions  is  clearly  constitutional — 
with  the  exception  of  that  part  which  confers  authority  upon  State  magistrates." 

3  Pfigg  vs.  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  16  Peters. 


70  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

without  an  effort  to  defend  it,  the  act  of  Congress  of  1793 
scarcely  deserves  the  name  of  a  remedy." 

Justice  McLean  dissented  from  the  opinion  of  the  court, 
believing  that  it  was  a  dangerous  infringement  of  personal 
liberty.  This  became  the  general  belief  in  the  North,  and 
Justice  Story  was  severely  criticised  for  his  share  in  this  busi 
ness.  Some  years  afterwards,  in  his  charge  to  the  jury  in  the 
South  Bend  fugitive  slave  case,  in  May,  1850,  Judge  McLean 
said: 

Under  the  act  of  1793,  the  master  or  his  agent,  had  a  right  to 
seize  his  absconding  slave  wherever  he  might  be  found,  not  to  take 
him  out  of  the  State,  but  to  bring  him  before  some  judicial  officer 
of  the  State,  or  of  the  United  States,  within  the  State,  to  make 
proof  of  his  right  to  the  services  of  the  fugitive.  But  by  the 
decision  in  the  case  of  Prigg  vs.  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  the  master 
has  a  right  to  seize  his  slave  in  any  State  where  he  may  be  found,  if 
he  can  do  so  without  a  breach  of  the  peace,  and  without  any  exhibi 
tion  of  claim,  or  authority,  take  him  back  to  the  State  from  whence 
he  absconded.  Believing  that  this  remedy  was  not  necessary  to  the 
rights  of  the  master,  and,  if  practically  enforced,  would  produce 
great  excitement  in  the  free  States,  I  dissented  from  the  opinion  of 
the  court,  and  stated  my  objection  with  whatever  force  I  was  able.1 

What  Judge  McLean  foresaw  as  to  the  effect  of  seizures, 
without  warrant,  on  public  sentiment,  was  quickly  confirmed. 
On  the  22d  of  April,  1842,  nine  slaves  escaped  from  Kentucky 
into  Ohio  and  found  refuge  on  Walnut  Hills,  Cincinnati. 
Soon  thereafter  friends  prevailed  on  a  worthy  farmer  named 
John  Van  Zant,  who  was  returning  home  from  market,  to 

1  This  charge  will  be  found  in  full  in  the  Western  Law  Journal  and  other  law 
journals  of  the  day.  A  very  full  abstract  is  given  in  a  pamphlet,  The  South  Bend 
Fugitive  Slave  Case,  Involving  the  Right  to  a  Writ  of  Habeas  Corpus,  1851.  The 
pamphlet  contains  a  history  of  the  case,  one  of  the  many  exciting  episodes  of 
the  sectional  contest,  and  severely  arraigns  Judge  McLean  for  not  disregarding  the 
law  as  settled  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Prigg.  A  number  of  colored 
people  domiciled  in  Michigan  were  seized  and  hurried  out  of  the  State  without  a 
hearing.  Some  citizens  of  South  Bend,  Indiana,  interfered,  and  thereby  laid 
themselves  liable  for  the  value  of  the  slaves  rescued.  Suit  followed  in  Indiana  ; 
the  jury  brought  in  a  verdict  against  the  defendants,  assessing  the  damages  at  $2,856. 


Fugitive  Slave  Cases  71 

carry  the  negroes  in  his  wagon  to  Lebanon.  One  of  the 
slaves  acted  as  driver.  When  fifteen  miles  from  Cincinnati 
they  were  met  by  some  ruffians,  who,  suspecting  that  the 
negroes  were  fugitive  slaves,  attempted  to  arrest  them.  Two 
escaped,  the  others  were  taken  back  to  Kentucky.  The  men 
were  tried  for  kidnapping,  and  being  ably  defended  by  Thomas 
Corwin,  were  acquitted.  But  it  went  hard  with  Mr.  Van  Zant, 
who  was  arrested,  imprisoned  and  sued  by  the  owner  of  the 
slaves,  for  harboring  and  concealing  them.  The  trial  was  be 
fore  Judge  McLean  of  the  United  States  Circuit  Court,  and 
excited  great  public  attention.  Salmon  P.  Chase  and  Thomas 
Morris  volunteered  as  counsel  for  the  defendant,  but  the 
rulings  of  the  court  were  strong  against  him,  and  an  adverse 
verdict  was  rendered.  The  amount  of  damages  swept  away 
the  most  of  Mr.  Van  Zant's  property.  The  case  was  appealed 
to  the  Supreme  Court,  and  before  it  was  ended  Governor 
Seward  came  into  it,  associated  with  Mr.  Chase,  while  Senator 
Morehead  of  Kentucky  was  counsel  for  the  owner.  The  finding 
of  the  court  below  was  sustained.  The  questions  involved  in 
this  case,  the  rigid  rulings  of  Judge  McLean  under  the  opinion 
in  the  Prigg  case,  the  amiable  character  of  Mr.  Van  Zant,  who 
was  the  original  of  the  benevolent  John  Van  Trompe  in  Uncle 
TOJJIS  Cabin,  the  severity  of  his  treatment,  and  the  eminence 
of  the  counsel  on  both  sides,  gave  to  it  great  popular  interest.1 

1  "  Honest  old  John  Van  Trompe  was  once  quite  a  considerable  landholder  and 
slave  owner  in  the  State  of  Kentucky.  Having  '  nothing  of  the  bear  about  him 
but  the  skin,'  and  being  gifted  by  nature  with  a  great,  honest,  just  heart,  quite 
equal  to  his  gigantic  frame,  he  had  been  for  some  years  witnessing,  with  repressed 
uneasiness,  the  workings  of  a  system  equally  bad  for  oppressor  and  oppressed." — 
Uncle  Tom  s  Cabin,  chap.  ix. 

John  Van  Zant  removed  to  the  Miami  Valley  in  1828,  and  settled  on  a  rich  and 
beautiful  farm  just  south  and  west  of  Sharon,  Hamilton  County,  Ohio.  Here  he 
built  his  home  and  named  it  Mt.  Pierpont,  from  which  none  needing  assistance 
was  ever  turned  away.  His  views  of  duty  were  expressed  in  these  words: 
"  The  highest  Christian  duty  is  that  of  extending  a  helping  hand  to  the  poor  and 
down-trodden,  whether  of  the  family  of  Japhet  or  Ham,  and  the  performance  of 
such  duties  is  the  great  evidence  of  a  Christian  faith."  He  died  before  his  property 
was  sold  to  meet  the  execution  of  the  decree  of  court.  He  was  buried  in  Spring 
Grove  Cemetery,  and  the  stone  marking  his  grave  bears  an  inscription  written  by 
Salmon  P.  Chase. 


72  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

In  October,  1842,  George  Latimer,  who  had  escaped  from 
Virginia,  was  seized  in  the  city  of  Boston,  without  warrant, 
at  the  request  of  James  B.  Grey,  of  Norfolk,  who  claimed  him 
as  his  slave.  A  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  sued  out  in  his 
favor,  and  then  ensued  a  contest  which  assumed  national  pro 
portions.  The  courts  and  officials  were  friendly  to  the  claim 
ant,  but  public  feeling  against  the  slave  system,  which  thus 
invaded  the  streets  of  Boston,  found  expression,  though  not 
without  a  contest  with  the  mob  representatives  of  the  com 
mercial  interests.  It  was  at  an  interrupted  meeting  in  Faneuil 
Hall,  when  the  mob  sought  to  suppress  the  freedom  of  speech, 
that  Wendell  Phillips  exclaimed;  "When  I  look  upon  these 
crowded  thousands  and  see  them  trample  on  their  consciences 
and  the  rights  of  their  fellow  men  at  the  bidding  of  a  piece  of 
parchment,  I  say,  'My  curse  be  upon  the  Constitution  of  these 
United  States!'  "  1  A  fund  was  raised  and  the  freedom  of 
Latimer  purchased. 

Public  feeling  in  Massachusetts  was  stirred  to  the  very 
depths.  The  Legislature,  which  was  Democratic,  passed  an 
act  making  it  a  penal  offence  for  any  State  officer  or  constable 
to  aid  in  any  way  in  carrying  the  law  of  1793  into  effect,  or  to 
confine  any  person  claimed  under  it  in  the  jails  or  prisons  of 
the  State.  Similar  action  was  taken  in  other  States.  Mr. 
Adams,  who  for  ten  years  had  been  fighting  the  battle  for 
the  right  of  petition,  relaxed  not  in  his  effort.  A  petition 
signed  by  fifty  thousand  of  the  citizens  of  Massachusetts, 
praying  for  such  laws  and  amendments  to  the  constitution 
as  would  relieve  that  State  from  all  further  participation  in 
slavery,  and  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Legislature  proposing 
an  amendment  to  the  national  Constitution,  so  as  to  base  rep 
resentation  upon  free  persons,  were  laid  by  him  before  the 
House,  causing  great  agitation  in  that  body. 

The  situation  of  the  conscientious  and  benevolent  master, 
and  of  religious  societies  in  the  heart  of  the  South  when  slav 
ery  agitation  had  intensified  sectional  feeling,  was  both  a 
delicate  and  difficult  one.  Correspondence  with  Southern 

1  The  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power  in  America,  vol.  i.,  p.  479. 


Attitude  of  Churches  73 

ecclesiastical  bodies  under  the  direction  of  the  General  Associ 
ation  of  Massachusetts,  in  1844,  revealed  the  state  of  feeling 
and  apprehension  more  clearly  than  any  other  effort  to  get  at 
public  sentiment.  Some  bodies  refused  to  reply,  but  others 
replied  at  considerable  length  and  apparently  with  great 
frankness. 

The  Presbytery  of  South  Alabama  said  that  the  number  of 
slaves  rendered  "immediate  emancipation  not  only  dangerous 
to  themselves,  but  doubly  so  to  the  safety  of  the  white  popu 
lation  ";  that  the  efforts  of  Abolitionists  had  awakened  fear 
in  the  slaveholder  for  his  personal  safety  and  the  safety  of  his 
property,  "thus  combining  every  class  of  men,  Christian  and 
unbeliever,  to  hold  them  in  closer  bondage  for  common 
safety  ";  that  this  feeling  had  led  to  rigorous  legislation.  In 
Alabama,  any  person  teaching  a  free  person  of  color  to  read 
or  write  incurred  a  penalty  of  $500.  The  laws  prohibited  the 
assembling  of  slaves  in  numbers  exceeding  five,  except  on 
their  owner's  premises,  under  pretence  of  any  religious  service, 
and  prohibited  any  negro  from  preaching  unless  five  slave 
holders  were  present.  Patrol  laws,  which  had  been  enacted, 
were  executed  with  increased  rigor,  and  privileges  once  per 
mitted  were  now  denied. 

Laws  had  been  enacted  which  forbade  any  one  to  free  or 
emancipate  a  slave  within  the  State  except  by  special  legisla 
tive  enactment,  "and  that,  too,  on  the  ground  of  some  extra 
ordinary  act  on  the  part  of  the  slave.  Thus,  if  every  man  in 
the  State  were  to  leave  slaves  free,  the  laws  would  still  hold 
them  in  bondage." 

The  correspondence  deprecated  the  course  of  the  Abolition 
ists,  and  concluded  as  follows: 

We  who  dwell  in  the  midst  of  the  slave  population,  and  who 
ought  to  be  as  much  respected  for  our  piety  and  our  opinions  as 
those  at  a  distance,  see  the  fatal  results  and  mourn  over  them  as 
they  spread  desolation  over  the  spiritual  and  temporary  welfare 
of  the  slave.  We  have  remonstrated  and  expostulated  with  our 
brethren  of  the  North,  but  expostulations  have  been  unheeded,  and 


74  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

treated  with  contempt,  or  our  motives  resolved  into  mere  cupidity 
and  avarice.  You  have  asked  us  to  advise  as  to  your  relation  and 
duty,  and  how  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  is  to  be  effected.  Our 
answer  to  this  inquiry  is,  we  exhort  you  to  let  it  alone — as  every 
step  you  have  already  taken  has  only  rendered  the  condition  of  the 
slave  worse  than  it  ever  has  been,  and  has  more  firmly  riveted  the 
chains  of  bondage,  and  can  never  reach  the  object  before  you. 
We  for  ourselves  feel  constrained  to  act  as  we  are  now  doing,  not 
to  touch  or  meddle  with  the  subject  of  slavery  as  a  moral  or  politi 
cal  evil,  until  God,  in  his  providence,  shall  open  the  way  before  us 
to  act,  should  he  design  their  emancipation. 

The  Presbytery  of  West  Tennessee  said  that  a 

large  majority  of  the  South  view  slavery  as  a  great  political  evil,  and 
few  will  be  found  who  believe  the  system  has  any  foundation  in 
justice  or  righteousness.  Many  are  anxious  to  wipe  forever  from 
our  political  and  religious  character  this  foul  blot;  but  how  this  is 
to  be  done,  so  as  to  secure  the  best  interests  of  all  concerned,  we 
have  not  yet  found  out. 

The  Southern  and  Western  Liberty  Convention,  held  at 
Cincinnati  on  the  nth  and  I2th  of  June,  1845,  was  a  remark 
able  body.  Fully  two  thousand  people  were  in  attendance. 
Nearly  all  of  the  free  States  were  represented,  Virginia  and 
Kentucky  and  the  territories  of  Iowa  and  Wisconsin.  The 
high  character  of  the  delegates  and  the  dignity  of  the  proceed 
ings  made  a  profound  impression  on  public  opinion.  It  was 
evident  that  the  election  of  James  K.  Polk  and  the  prospect 
of  new  slave  States  and  a  war  with  Mexico  had  not  served  to 
allay  excitement  and  anxiety  in  the  North,  but  had  intensified 
the  feeling  in  favor  of  restricting  the  power  of  the  institution 
of  slavery.  James  G.  Birney  presided,  and  Salmon  P.  Chase, 
just  coming  into  prominence  as  a  leader  of  the  Free  Democ 
racy,  was  chairman  of  a  committee  appointed  to  address  the 
American  people. 

The  pamphlet  edition  of  the  address  written  by  Mr.  Chase 
had  as  a  text  "Principles  and  Measures  of  True  Democracy." 


The  Liberty  Convention  75 

The  method  of  treatment  showed  a  skilful  political  hand. 
The  non-slaveholders  of  the  slave  States  were  asked  to  con 
sider  what  interest  they  had  in  the  system  of  slavery.  What 
benefit  did  it  confer  on  them  ?  What  blessing  did  it  promise 
to  their  children?  Slavery  hindered  their  prosperity.  It  pre 
vented  general  education.  It  paralyzed  industry  and  enter 
prise.  It  destroyed  the  morals  of  a  community.  It  sought 
to  deprive  non-slaveholders  of  political  power.  It  degraded 
and  dishonored  labor.  In  what  country  did  an  aristocracy 
ever  care  for  the  poor  ?  When  did  slaveholders  ever  attempt 
to  improve  the  condition  of  the  free  laborer  ?  "White 
negroes"  was  the  contemptuous  term  by  which  Robert  Wick- 
liffe  of  Kentucky  designated  the  free  laborers  of  his  State. 
Chancellor  Harper,  of  South  Carolina,  declared  that,  "so  far 
as  the  mere  laborer  has  the  pride,  the  knowledge,  or  the 
aspiration  of  a  freeman,  he  is  unfitted  for  his  situation";  and 
Governor  McDuffie,  of  the  same  State,  went  so  far  as  to  say 
that  "the  institution  of  domestic  slavery  supersedes  the  neces 
sity  of  an  order  of  nobility  and  the  other  appendages  of  an 
hereditary  system  of  government." 

These  facts  were  calculated  to  make  the  farmer,  the  me 
chanic  and  the  laborer  of  the  North  think,  as  well  as  the  non- 
slaveholder  of  the  slave  States.  That  they  should  influence 
political  action  was  inevitable.  "We  would  not  invade  the 
Constitution,"  was  the  language  of  the  address,  "  but  we 
would  have  the  Constitution  rightly  construed  and  adminis 
tered  according  to  its  true  sense  and  spirit." 

Though  these  questions  were  addressed  to  the  non-slave 
holders  of  the  South,  the  writer  had  a  broader  purpose.  He 
knew  it  to  be  possible  to  reach  the  non-slaveholders  of  West 
Virginia  and  portions  of  Tennessee  and  Kentucky,  where  there 
was  already  prevalent  a  feeling  of  repugnance  to  slavery,  but 
he  knew  likewise  that  elsewhere  the  aristocracy  received  a 
strong  and  reliable  support  from  that  class  of  poor  whites  who 
were  most  injuriously  affected  by  the  slave  system.  The  more 
aggressive  the  slaveholders  became  in  their  purpose  to  extend 
the  system  to  new  territories;  the  harsher  and  more  cruel  the 


76  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

regulations  with  which  the  system  was  hedged  about,  the 
more  devoted  became  the  support  of  the  non-slaveholders. 
Cut  off  from  the  means  of  education  for  themselves  and  chil 
dren,  cut  off  from  any  possible  chance  of  a  rise  in  the  social 
scale,  and  deprived  of  any  participation  in  the  administration 
of  public  affairs,  yet  they  applauded  every  act  calculated  to 
perpetuate  their  own  dead-level  existence.  They  were  citi 
zens,  voters,  a  part  of  a  political  body  in  which  there  was  no 
equality  of  rights,  which  was  far  removed  from  true  democ 
racy.  Where  shall  be  found  a  full  explanation?  The  chief 
purpose  Mr.  Chase  had  in  view  in  addressing  the  non-slave 
holders,  was  to  influence  the  political  action  of  the  intelligent 
working  classes  of  the  North,  by  bringing  into  sharp  contrast 
the  two  systems  of  social  order.  It  was  the  policy  of  the  anti- 
slavery  leaders  to  press  this  issue  to  the  front.  Hence,  when 
the  McDuffies  and  Davises  of  the  plantations  talked  about 
"an  order  of  nobility  "  ;  when  they  declared  that  the  condition 
of  slavery  was  the  happiest  relation  that  labor  could  sustain 
to  capital,  they  promoted  the  scheme  of  the  new  leaders  com 
ing  to  the  front  in  the  North. 

The  few  thousand  anti-slavery  votes  cast  by  the  citizens  of 
New  York  in  the  election  of  1844  resulted  in  the  defeat  of 
Henry  Clay,  with  the  certainty  that  the  election  of  his  op 
ponent  involved  a  war  with  Mexico  and  an  extension  of  slave 
territory.  This  was  the  view  taken  by  a  vast  majority  of  the 
people  North  and  South  who  hoped  to  see  some  plan  adopted 
to  minimize  the  evils  of  domestic  servitude.  "Could  Texas 
be  obtained  and  slavery  established  there,"  said  Mr.  Upshur 
(afterward  Mr.  Tyler's  Secretary  of  State)  in  the  Virginia 
convention  in  1829,  "it  would  be  greatly  to  our  advantage  by 
raising  the  market  price  of  our  slaves,"  which  increase  was 
placed  as  high  as  fifty  per  cent,  by  competent  authority. 
With  only  about  three  or  four  slaves  to  the  square  mile,  the 
three  hundred  thousand  masters  yet  demanded  room  for  de 
velopment.  To  secure  this  end  the  skill  and  energy  of  the 
executive  department  were  now  exerted. 

When  Mr.  Webster  had  brought  to  a  successful  termination 


Annexation  of  Texas  77 

his  negotiations  with  Lord  Ashburton  in  the  Treaty  of  Wash 
ington,  he  retired  from  the  Department  of  State  and  was  suc 
ceeded  by  Abel  P.  Upshur,  of  Virginia,  who  zealously  pursued 
the  policy  of  acquiring  Texas.  The  friends  of  Mr.  Tyler 
hoped  this  might  make  him  the  Democratic  candidate  in  the 
approaching  presidential  election.  The  sudden  and  tragical 
ending  of  Mr.  Upshur's  career  threatened  to  interrupt  the 
scheme;  but  Mr.  Calhoun  was  persuaded  to  take  the  office. 
He  saw  an  opportunity  to  serve  the  South  and  at  the  same 
time  to  be  revenged  upon  his  old  enemy,  Martin  Van  Buren, 
whose  nomination  was  confidently  expected  and  desired  by  a 
majority  of  the  Democracy  of  the  country.  The  master  mind 
of  the  South  Carolinian  drew  from  Mr.  Van  Buren  an  expres 
sion  of  opinion  against  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  then 
consolidated  the  vote  of  the  South  in  the  national  convention 
against  him.  His  enemy  fell  before  the  rule  requiring  a  vote 
of  two-thirds  to  nominate.1 

We  must  conclude  that  Mr.  Calhoun  did  not  expect  that 
the  annexation  of  Texas,  which  he  promoted  with  zeal  and 
ability,  would  lead  to  a  war  with  Mexico ;  otherwise  he  would 
be  open  to  a  charge  of  inconsistency.3  Delay  would  have 
effected  annexation  without  conflict.  The  United  States  had 
only  to  wait  for  peace  between  Mexico  and  Texas,  which  was 
on  the  point  of  being  signed  in  January,  1844,  under  the  medi 
ation  of  Great  Britain  and  France,  when  Texas  and  the  United 
States  would  have  been  the  only  parties  in  interest.  But 
President  Tyler's  purposes  led  to  the  adoption  of  a  tortuous 
course.  The  ''administration  broke  up  the  peaceful  negotia 
tions,  dispersed  the  ministers,  assumed  the  war,  and  placed 
the  army  and  navy  under  the  control  of  the  President  of 

1  "  If  we  cannot  get  Texas  with  Mr.  Van  Buren's  aid,  we  must  obtain  it  without 
his  aid." — Gen.    Jackson,   reported  by   A.    J.    Donelson.     See   Parton's    Life   of 
Jackson,  vol.  iii.,  p.  675  et  seq. 

2  The   credit    afterwards    taken   to   himself   by   Mr.    Calhoun    did    not    please 
Tyler.       See    Letters    and    Times    of  the    Tylers,  vol.    ii.,   p.   417.      Mr.    Tyler 
and  Mr.   Calhoun   both    disapproved    of    the    Polk    administration    and    sought 
to  make  it   responsible    for   the   war   that    followed   their   intrigues.      Ibid.,   p. 
416. 


78  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Texas  to  fight  Mexico."  There  was  a  truce  when  Mexico 
saw  that  Congress  rejected  a  treaty  for  annexation,  only  to  be 
broken  again  during  the  closing  hours  of  Mr.  Tyler's  adminis 
tration. 

Upon  the  defeat  of  the  treaty,  Milton  Brown,  at  the  instiga 
tion  of  the  Tyler  administration  and  with  the  approval  of  Mr. 
Polk,  introduced  in  the  House  a  joint  resolution  declaring 
the  terms  on  which  Congress  would  admit  Texas  into  the 
Union  as  a  State,  which  was  adopted  by  that  body.  When 
it  reached  the  Senate,  Mr.  Tappan  and  other  Democratic 
Senators  that  favored  Mr.  Benton's  plan  of  negotiation  were 
prevailed  on  not  to  vote  to  reject  the  resolution,  but  to  amend 
it  by  incorporating  the  Benton  bill  as  an  alternative  proposi 
tion  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  President.  Before  agreeing 
to  this,  Mr.  Polk  was  seen  and  a  pledge  secured  from  him  that 
he  would  adopt  the  plan  of  negotiation.  A  secret  agent  was 
despatched  to  Texas,  in  the  closing  hours  of  that  administra 
tion,  with  the  House  resolution — which  "slammed  the  door  of 
conciliation  in  the  face  of  Mexico,  and  inflamed  her  pride  and 
resentment  to  the  highest  degree."3  It  was  in  this  manner 
the  annexation  of  Texas  was  consummated.  There  was  a 
state  of  war  existing  between  that  country  and  Mexico. 
"Under  those  circumstances,"  said  the  venerable  Albert 
Gallatin,  "there  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  the  annexation 
of  Texas  was  tantamount  to  a  declaration  of  war  against 
Mexico."  The  formal  action  taken  by  Congress  later  mis 
represented  the  facts. 

The  details  of  that  war  need  not  find  a  place  in  our  narrative. 
Only  the  political  results  interest  us.  Notwithstanding  the 
brilliant  achievements  of  our  armies  in  the  field,  there  was 
ever  present  at  home  a  feeling  of  anxiety.  In  the  Congres 
sional  elections  the  administration  was  defeated,  and  the 

1  Speech  of  Col.  Benton  at  St.  Louis,  printed  in  the  Republican. 

2  Col.  Benton's  St.  Louis  speech. 

3  Writings  of  Gallatin,  vol.  iii.,  p.  562.      "  In  one  year  from  the  annexation  of 
Texas  the  nation  was  plunged  into  a  war  of  devastation  and  bloodshed,  which 
cost  the   expenditure  of  three  hundred  millions  of  treasure  and  eight  thousand 
lives." — Giddings's  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  253. 


The  Oregon  Question  79 

Whigs  obtained  a  majority.  It  was  the  vision  he  saw,  in 
whiqh  were  the  shadowy  outlines  of  fraternal  strife,  that 
caused  Mr.  Calhoun  to  forebode  disaster  if  the  war  were  prose 
cuted  to  the  extent  of  acquiring  additional  territory.  It  was 
the  iniquity  of  this  raid  on  a  sister  republic,  the  belief  that  a 
nation  ought  never  to  go  to  war  for  a  profitable  wrong,  that 
moved  Mr.  Corwin,  the  eloquent  Senator  from  Ohio,  in  his 
speech  of  February  n,  1847,  to  stigmatize  the  war,  from  his 
place  in  the  Senate,  as  "a  crime  of  such  infernal  hue  that 
every  other  in  the  catalogue  of  iniquity,  when  compared  with 
it,  whitens  into  virtue"  ;  and  then  contemplating  the  possibility 
of  what  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina  feared, — when  the 
States  of  the  Union  should  plunge  into  the  bottomless  gulf  of 
civil  strife, — he  added  these  solemn  words  of  prophetic  warn 
ing:  "We  stand  this  day  on  the  crumbling  brink  of  that  gulf — 
we  see  its  bloody  eddies  wheeling  and  boiling  before  us." 

The  annexation  of  Texas  was  complicated  with  the  Oregon 
question  in  a  way  dear  to  the  heart  of  the  practical  politician. 
That  territory  in  the  far  northwest  was  in  controversy  between 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  and  the  two  governments 
were  in  joint  possession  under  the  convention  of  1827.  There 
had  been  frequent  attempts  to  come  to  an  agreement,  the 
British  government  proposing  the  Columbia  River,  and  our 
government  offering  the  forty-ninth  parallel,  as  the  dividing 
line,  without  success.  As  American  settlers  on  the  Willamette 
and  at  Astoria  increased  in  number  and  discovered  the  possi 
bilities  of  the  country,  the  Western  States  demanded  that 
notice  of  the  termination  of  the  joint  occupancy  should  be 
served  on  Great  Britain,  and  the  American  right  of  sole  pos 
session  defended.  The  able  politicians  of  the  Democratic 
party  who  were  promoting  the  scheme  for  the  absorption  of 
Texas,  kept  the  Oregon  question  well  to  the  front,  and  made 
it  conspicuous  in  the  campaign  of  1844. 

At  a  meeting  of  citizens  of  Cincinnati,  opposed  to  the  an 
nexation  of  Texas,  held  on  the  2Qth  of  March,  a  committee 
was  appointed  to  correspond  with  the  prominent  men  aspiring 
to  the  presidency,  and  to  obtain  an  expression  of  opinion  on 


8o  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

that  question.  Mr.  Polk  declared  that  he  was  in  favor  of  the 
immediate  re-annexation  of  Texas. 

Let  Texas  be  re-annexed,  and  the  authority  and  laws  of  the 
United  States  be  established  and  maintained  within  her  limits,  as 
also  in  the  Oregon  territory,  and  let  the  fixed  policy  of  our  govern 
ment  be  not  to  permit  Great  Britain  or  any  other  foreign  power  to 
plant  a  colony  or  hold  dominion  over  any  pomon  of  the  people  or 
territory  of  either.1 

This  paragraph  became  the  last  plank  in  the  platform  of  the 
Democratic  party,  adopted  at  Baltimore  in  May  following. 
The  terms  "re-occupation  of  Oregon"  and  "re-annexation 
of  Texas,"  expressing  a  purpose  to  regain  territory  unjustly 
separated,  were  employed  and  were  calculated  to  appeal  to 
popular  prejudice. 

Mr.  Polk  in  his  inaugural  address  re-affirmed  the  claim 
made  by  his  party  in  the  national  canvass  to  the  whole  of  Ore 
gon  to  54°  40'  north  latitude,  but  quickly  had  to  abandon  this 
position  to  avoid  complications  with  Great  Britain  in  Texas, 
and  a  war  with  that  country,  which  an  attempt  to  occupy  the 
whole  of  Oregon  would  probably  have  caused.  He  was  res 
cued  from  the  awkward  position  in  which  he  had  been  placed, 
by  the  diplomatic  skill  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  his  Secretary  of 
State,  who  adroitly  secured  from  Mr.  Pakenham  a  proposition 
on  behalf  of  the  British  government  to  make  the  forty-ninth 
parallel  the  dividing  line,  three  times  offered  by  our  govern 
ment  and  three  times  rejected  by  England.  The  President 
on  being  advised  by  the  Senate  to  accept  the  proposition 
made  a  treaty  based  on  it. 

During  a  discussion  of  the  question  in  the  Senate,  the  sub 
ject  of  slavery,  which  would  not  down  at  any  man's  bidding, 
became  prominent.  The  Democratic  Senators  of  the  North, 
who  had  employed  the  party  cry,  "Fifty-four  forty  or  fight," 
during  the  presidential  canvass,  found  themselves  much  em 
barrassed  by  the  readiness  with  which  the  administration 

1  The  letter  was  addressed  to  S.  P.  Chase,  Thos.  Heaton  and  others,  Com 
mittee.  The  word  "  re-annexation  "  expressed  the  claim  that  Texas  was  a  part  of 
the  Louisiana  purchase. 


The  Oregon  Question  Si 

abandoned  that  position.  If  Oregon  "was  adapted  to  the  pro 
duction  of  sugar  and  cotton,"  sarcastically  exclaimed  Senator 
Hannegan  of  Indiana,  "it  would  not  have  encountered  the 
opposition  it  has  met  here ;  its  possession  would  have  been  at 
once  secured,  for  that  very  opposition  would  have  composed 
its  warmest  support."  l  But  it  was  not  needed  for  the  pro 
tection  of  the  peculiar  institution,  although  Mr.  Calhoun 
argued  that  the  Constitution  carried  it  there,  despite  Congress, 
despite  territorial  inhibition,  and  the  North  found  consolation 
for  the  loss  of  all  of  Oregon  north  of  the  forty-ninth  parallel, 
in  the  reflection  that  slavery  was  excluded  from  the  territory.2 

1  Speech,  Feb.  16,  1846.     Pamphlet,  p.  8. 

2  The  claim  of  the  United  States  to  Oregon  was  founded  on  exploration  and  on 
the  acquisition  of  the  Spanish  title  in   1819.     The  British  claim  was  far  less  ten 
able — quite  shadowy,  indeed.     When  the  Spanish  convention  of  1790  was  under 
discussion  in  Parliament,  Mr.  Fox  said  that  the  British  right  of  settlement  on  the 
northwest  coast  was  completely  undefined  in  the  convention,  and  that  they  had 
given  up  all  right  to  settle,  except  for  temporary  purposes, — Parliamentary  History, 
vol.  xxviii.,  p.  995. 

Congress  provided  for  a  territorial  government  Aug.  2-13,  1848,  but  only  after 
a  stubborn  contest  extending  over  a  period  of  two  years.  At  the  first  session  of 
the  Twenty-ninth  Congress,  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Territories  in  the  House,  reported  a  bill  organizing  the  territory  of  Oregon  which 
went  to  the  committee  of  the  whole.  There  it  was  amended  by  adding  the  sixth 
article  from  the  ordinance  of  1787  prohibiting  slavery,  which  amendment  was 
approved  by  the  House — yeas  108,  nays  44— the  latter  being  made  up  of  the 
entire  Southern  Democratic  vote,  four  Northern  Democrats,  and  six  Southern 
Whigs.  The  bill  failed  in  the  Senate.  At  the  second  session  Mr.  Douglas  again 
reported  a  bill  for  organizing  the  territory,  and  it  was  now  proposed  by  Mr.  Burt, 
of  South  Carolina,  to  qualify  the  clause  prohibiting  slavery  by  inserting  as  a  rea 
son  for  its  incorporation,  that  the  territory  of  Oregon  lay  north  of  36°,  30'.  The 
object  of  this  motion  was  to  commit  the  House  to  the  principle  of  making  that 
the  dividing  line  between  free  and  slave  territory  to  the  Pacific  coast.  It  was 
rejected.  The  bill  as  passed  by  the  House  was  again  smothered  by  the  Senate. 

In  the  Thirtieth  Congress,  Caleb  B.  Smith  of  Indiana,  a  Whig,  was  chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Territories.  He  promptly  reported  a  bill  with  a  clause  pro 
hibiting  slavery  and  pressed  it  to  a  vote — yeas  128,  nays  71 — a  sectional  vote. 
In  the  Senate,  Mr.  Douglas,  who  had  been  elected  to  that  body,  succeeded  in 
amending  the  House  bill  by  adding  a  clause  extending  the  Missouri  Compromise 
line  to  the  Pacific.  In  this  shape  it  was  returned  to  the  House,  which  body  re 
jected  the  Douglas  amendment,  and  adhered  to  the  original  form.  When  returned 
to  the  Senate  that  body  receded — yeas  29,  nays  25.  Among  the  yeas  were 
three  Southern  Democrats — Benton,  Houston  and  Spruance. 

VOL.  I.  — 6. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE  WILMOT   PROVISO — CLAY,  CALHOUN,  WEBSTER,   IN   THE 
SENATE— THE   COMPROMISE   OF    1850 

DURING  the  progress  of  the  war  with  Mexico  it  became 
evident  that  the  ulterior  object  of  the  administration 
was  the  acquisition  of  territory.1  ''The  existing  war 
with  Mexico,"  so  reads  President  Folk's  message  of  December 
8,  1846,  "was  neither  desired  nor  provoked  by  the  United 
States.  On  the  contrary,  all  honorable  means  were  resorted  to 
to  avert  it."  And  yet,  very  soon  after  March  4,  1845,  the  Presi 
dent  had  confided  to  his  Secretary  of  the  Navy  that  one  of  "the 
four  great  measures  "  of  his  administration  was  to  be  the  acqui 
sition  of  California,  and  within  four  months  after  the  inaugura 
tion  "he  gave  orders  for  the  seizure  and  possession  of  that 
country."3  This  was  a  year  before  actual  hostilities  began. 
The  interval  was  employed  in  making  preparations.3 

1  "Every  battle  fought  in  Mexico,"  said  a  writer  in  the  Charleston  Courier, 
"  and  every  dollar  spent  there,  but  insures  the  acquisition  of  territory  which  must 
widen  the  field  of  Southern  enterprise  and  power  in  the  future,  and  the  final  re 
sult  will  be  to  readjust  the  whole  balance  of  power  in  the  confederacy  so  as  to 
give  us  control  over  the  operations  of  the  government  in  all  time  to  come.  If  the 
South  be  true  to  themselves,  the  day  of  our  depression  is  gone,  and  gone  forever." 

3  The  Century  Magazine,  vol.  xli.,  No.  6.  Correspondence  of  George  Ban 
croft  with  Gen.  John  C.  Fremont.  The  whole  narrative  of  General  Fremont's  is 
important  as  to  the  purpose  of  the  administration. 

3  Senator  Henry  S.  Foote,  of  Mississippi,  in  a  card  printed  in  the  National 
Intelligencer,  April,  1849,  said  tnat  nad  the  Senate  passed  the  civil  and  diplo 
matic  appropriation  bill  with  the  House  amendment  organizing  California  as  free 
territory,  the  bill  would  have  been  defeated,  as  President  Polk  had  already  in  part 

82 


The  Wilmot  Proviso  83 

Apprehension  of  the  real  purpose  of  the  administration 
stirred  the  conservatives  everywhere  into  great  political  ac 
tivity.  Men  of  Folk's  own  party,  deprecating  the  evil  influ 
ences  of  slavery,  determined  to  resist  its  further  enlargement. 
When  in  compliance  with  a  request  of  the  President,  a  bill 
was  reported  in  the  House  appropriating  $2,000,000,  "for 
the  purpose  of  settling  the  differences  with  Mexico,"  a  few 
Northern  Democrats  decided  to  force  the  issue  underlying 
this  aggressive  war.  Accordingly,  Mr.  Brinkerhoff,  of  Ohio, 
drew  up  a  proviso  to  the  bill  extending  to  any  territory  that 
might  be  acquired  from  Mexico,  by  treaty  or  otherwise,  the 
sixth  compact  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787  prohibiting  slavery, 
wThich  was  offered  by  Mr.  Wilmot  of  Pennsylvania,  and  which 
was  thereafter  popularly  known  as  the  Wilmot  Proviso.1 

prepared  his  veto  in  anticipation  of  such  a  result.  A  similar  statement  had  been 
made  at  an  earlier  day  in  the  House,  by  Mr.  McClelland,  of  Michigan. 

During  this  discussion  of  the  territorial  question  in  the  House,  Feb.  17,  1849, 
some  remarkable  statements  were  made  charging  the  President  with  double- 
dealing.  Mr,  Wilmot,  of  Pennsylvania,  called  out  by  Mr.  Stephens,  of  Georgia, 
related  that  the  President  had  sent  for  him  and  said  to  him  that  the  Proviso 
was  giving  him  great  trouble  and  embarrassment,  and  if  insisted  on  as  an  amend 
ment  to  an  appropriation  bill  would  present  a  serious  obstacle  in  the  way  of  con 
summating  a  peace.  To  Mr.  Wilmot's  remark  that  all  he  wanted  was  to  embody 
the  principle  of  freedom,  and  that  a  joint  resolution  declaratory  of  the  principle 
would  suffice,  the  President  said,  "  Mr.  Wilmot,  bring  it  forward— it  will  not  be 
unpopular  in  Mississippi,"  and  with  much  earnestness  of  manner  added  that,  "he 
did  not  wish  to  see  slavery  extended  beyond  its  present  limits." 

Mr.  Stephens  denounced  the  course  of  the  administration  as  outrageous  and 
unconstitutional,  not  a  whit  better  than  that  of  a  brigand  or  a  Charles  II. 
"  Nothing  but  the  foul  spirit  of  the  infernal  regions  could  have  stirred  up 
the  dark  catalogue  of  usurpations  and  aggressions  which  followed  the  act  of  the 
executive"  in  forcing  war  upon  Mexico.  It  was  proposed  to  expunge  from  the 
journal  the  declaration  that  the  executive  unconstitutionally  brought  on  the  war. 
In  his  view,  it  would  be  a  long  time  before  that  solemn  truth  would  be  expunged. 

"The  present  war  with  Mexico,"  said  Gen.  Houston,  "  is  but  a  continuation 
of  the  Texan  war."  And  the  results  of  the  Texan  war  were  accomplished  through 
the  instrumentality  of  the  United  States.  See  letter  of  Martin  Van  Buren  to  a 
member  of  the  Baltimore  convention. 

1  Schouler  (vol.  v.,  p.  67)  says  :  "Of  this  famous  Wilmot  Proviso,  David  Wil 
mot,  rural  Pennsylvanian  and  Democrat  of  the  last  and  next  House,  was  unques 
tionably  the  author."  This  is  an  error.  Jacob  R.  Brinkerhoff,  of  Ohio,  was  the 
author.  Several  copies  of  his  original  draft  were  made  and  distributed  among  the 


84  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

The  amendment  was  adopted  in  committee,  and  on  the  bill 
thus  amended  being  reported  to  the  House,  it  passed  by  a 
vote  of  85  yeas  to  80  nays.  It  was  sent  to  the  Senate  in  the 
last  hours  of  the  session  but  never  reached  a  vote. 

The  principle  involved  assumed  great  importance  in  subse 
quent  discussions.  It  was  universally  adopted  by  the  Northern 
Whigs,  and  by  the  Free  Soil  element  in  the  Democratic  party. 
Mr.  Calhoun  seized  upon  it  as  a  means  of  forcing  the  issue 
between  the  sections.  "I  would  regard  any  compromise  or 
adjustment  of  the  Proviso,"  said  he  in  a  confidential  letter  to 
a  friend,  "or  even  its  defeat,  without  meeting  the  danger  in 
its  whole  length  and  breadth,  as  very  unfortunate  for  us."1 
What  he  deemed  the  whole  length  and  breadth  is  made  clear  by 
studying  his  resolutions  of  February  iQth,  1847,  n^s  speech  on 
the  Oregon  question  a  year  later,  and  the  correspondence  of 
some  of  his  contemporaries.  Mr.  Calhoun's  reasoning  led  him 
finally  to  deny  that  Congress  had  power  to  prohibit  slavery 
in  a  territory;  to  deny  such  power  to  the  inhabitants  or  legis 
lative  organization  of  a  territory.  The  South  asked  that  the 
territories  be  left  open  without  restriction  or  condition,  except 
that  imposed  by  the  Constitution  as  a  prerequisite  for  admis 
sion  into  the  Union.  The  two  sections  stood  in  the  relation 
of  partners  in  a  common  Union,  with  equal  dignity  and  equal 
rights.  The  South  contributed  their  full  share  of  treasure  and 
blood  in  the  acquisition  of  territories.  Would  the  North,  in 
open  defiance  of  the  dictates  of  equity  and  justice,  exclude 
the  South  from  them?  Would  the  South  sink  down  into  a 
state  of  acknowledged  inferiority,  and  be  deprived  of  an 

Free  Soil  Democrats  in  the  House,  with  the  understanding  that  whoever  could 
first  get  recognition  from  the  Speaker  should  offer  it.  Wilmot  succeeded  and  won 
distinction  therefor.  The  original  Proviso  was  in  Judge  Brinkerhoff's  possession 
until  his  death  in  1880,  and  to  it  was  added  by  him  an  account  of  its  origin. 
After  his  death  the  family,  at  the  suggestion  of  General  Roeliff  Brinkerhoff,  to 
whom  I  am  indebted  for  these  facts,  deposited  it  with  Mr.  Spofford,  the  Librarian 
of  Congress. 

See  Howe's  History  of  Ohio,  vol.  iii.,  p.  161.  Also  Wilson's  Rise  and  Fall  of 
the  Slave  Power.  A  reference  is  made  to  this  by  Von  Hoist,  vol.  iii.,  p.  287, 
note. 

1  Quoted  by  Benton  in  his  'Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  ii.,  p.  695. 


The  Wilmot  Proviso  85 


equality  of  rights  in  this  federal  partnership?  If  so  they  were 
wofully  degenerated  from  their  sires,  and  deserved  to  change 
conditions  with  their  slaves. 

The  pathos  in  this  appeal  did  not  mislead  Southern  states 
men  holding  conservative  opinions  as  to  the  Carolinian's  real 
motive.  The  Charleston  Mercury  revealed  this  when  it  said 
that  the  object  of  the  Proviso  was  to  abridge  new  States  of 
certain  political  power  possessed  by  the  old  States.  Mr.  Web 
ster  expressed  the  point  at  issue  in  a  word  when  he  said  it  was 
a  political  question.  The  North  was  justified  in  resisting  the 
increase  of  slave  representation,  because  it  gave  power  to  the 
minority  in  a  manner  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  our 
government.1 

The  Proviso  promised  to  prove  a  source  of  trouble  to  both 
of  the  great  parties.  Mr.  Buchanan  proposed  to  get  rid  of  it 
by  suggesting  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line 
to  the  Pacific.  General  Cass  sought  to  commit  the  Democracy 
wholly  to  the  interests  of  the  South  in  advance  of  the  termina 
tion  of  the  war  with  Mexico.  In  a  letter  to  A.  O.  P.  Nichol 
son,  of  Nashville,  he  hastened  to  declare  against  slavery 
restriction  in  the  territories,  arguing  that  in  no  provision  of 
the  Constitution  was  power  conferred  on  Congress  to  legis 
late  on  the  subject.  This  letter  advanced  the  doctrine 
of  popular  sovereignty.  The  Albany  Argus  the  organ  of  the 
Hunkers  of  New  York  and  of  the  national  administration 
north  of  the  Potomac,  committed  the  Democracy  of  that  State 
to  a  radical  pro-slavery  policy,  which  was  a  bold  challenge  to 
the  Barnburners  for  supremacy.  It  had  been  represented  to 
the  New  York  delegation  at  the  Baltimore  convention  in  1844, 
that  Colonel  Polk  was  a  devoted  friend  of  Mr.  Van  Buren, 
and  in  recognition  of  this  friendship  the  former  received  the 
nomination.  But  Mr.  Polk,  when  he  assumed  the  responsi 
bilities  of  his  great  office,  could  not  look  to  the  Barnburners 
for  support  for  the  extreme  Southern  policy  he  was  inaugu 
rating,  and  he  promptly  made  his  alliance  with  the  other  wing 
of  the  party  in  the  Empire  State.  William  L.  Marcy  re- 

1  Speech  at  the  Whig  State  convention  in  Boston,  Sept.  29,  1847. 


86  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

ceived  a  place  in  the  Cabinet  instead  of  the  person  recom 
mended  by  Mr.  Van  Buren  and  Silas  Wright,  and  henceforth 
only  the  Hunker  wing  was  recognized  by  the  administration.1 
This  was  fitting,  because  the  Barnburners  had  opposed  the 
annexation  of  Texas  and  were  pledged  to  resist  the  further 
extension  of  slavery.  Therefore  on  the  opening  of  the  presi 
dential  campaign  of  1848  the  split  in  the  Democratic  party  of 
the  State  of  New  York  assumed  national  importance.  / 

When  the  national  convention  assembled  in  Baltimore,  May 
22d,  two  delegations  from  New  York  made  application  for 
admission,  each  claiming  to  represent  the  Democracy  of  that 
State.  An  attempt  was  made  to  commit  the  two  factions  to 
the  action  of  the  convention,  by  admitting  both,  giving  to 
them  united  the  right  to  cast  the  vote  of  the  State.  But  the 
Barnburners — the  only  delegates  present  with  credentials  from 
a  body  regularly  constituted — who  represented  the  sentiments 
of  the  State  on  the  sectional  controversy,  and  who  cherished 
resentments  for  the  sacrifice  of  their  beloved  leader,  Silas 
Wright,  refused  to  compromise  and  withdrew  from  the  con 
vention.  They  knew  that  if  they  participated  in  the  proceed 
ings  they  would  be  bound  to  support  the  nominees  of  the 
convention,  who  were  certain  to  represent  the  administration 
and  its  extreme  Southern  policy.  The  Hunkers,  thinking  to 
strengthen  themselves  at  home,  refrained  from  casting  the 
vote  of  the  State.  Only  the  names  of  administration  men 
were  presented,  and  on  the  fourth  and  final  ballot  Lewis  Cass 
of  Michigan  was  nominated.2  General  William  O.  Butler  of 
Kentucky,  who  had  won  some  distinction  in  the  Mexican  war, 
was  nominated  for  Vice-President.  The  convention  rejected 
the  Calhoun  dogma  of  non-interference  with  slavery  in  the 
territories,  which  was  presented  in  the  form  of  a  resolution 
offered  by  Mr.  Yancey,  of  Alabama,  not  from  lack  of  sym 
pathy,  but  because  the  political  record  of  the  candidate  for 
President  in  devotion  to  the  behests  of  the  cotton  barons  was 

1  See  vol.   iii.   of  Hammond's  Political  History  of  New  York,   which  contains 
full  details  of  the  political  intrigues  of  1844  and  throughout  the  Polk  administration. 

2  The  vote  stood:  Cass,  179  ;  Buchanan,  33  ;  Woodbury,  38  ;  Worth,  I  ;  Butler,  3. 


Whig  Mexican  War  Policy  87 

more  satisfactory  to  the  Southern  politicians  than  any  written 
platform. 

The  Whig  leaders  had  watched  the  progress  of  the  war  with 
keen  solicitude.  When  it  became  apparent  that  the  course  of 
the  administration  did  not  command  popular  approval,  they 
saw  an  opportunity  to  restore  their  party  to  power.  Their 
predictions  had  been  verified  by  events.  The  early  elections 
were  decidedly  in  their  favor,  which  showed  the  trend  of  pub 
lic  opinion.  The  situation  for  them  was  one  of  great  delicacy. 
The  Wilmot  Proviso  was  a  menace  to  harmony,  in  case  new 
territory  should  be  acquired  from  Mexico.  Their  true  policy, 
therefore,  was  to  bring  about  a  settlement  of  the  Mexican 
difficulties,  if  possible,  without  territorial  indemnity.  We 
shall  find  them — Mr.  Berrien  in  Georgia,  Mr.  Webster  in 
Massachusetts,  Mr.  Clay  in  Kentucky  and  Mr.  Corwin  in 
Ohio — addressing  themselves  to  the  task  of  educating  the 
people  to  their  views.  Mr.  Corwin's  great  speech  of  February 
—a  speech  as  great  In  principle  and  as  transcendent  in  moral 
courage  as  it  was  splendid  in  oratorical  genius — was  the  open 
ing  gun  of  the  campaign.  It  electrified  the  North.1  It  caused 
men  to  think;  to  investigate  the  origin  of  the  war;  to  seek  to 
determine  upon  whom  the  responsibility  should  be  placed 
for  perverting  the  functions  of  the  national  government  to 
the  protection,  the  support,  the  extension  of  slavery  beyond 
the  original  States  to  free  territory.2  But  it  had  a  broader 

"  The  people  are  delighted  with  the  speech  of  Corwin.  He  has  touched  the 
popular  heart,  and  the  question  asked  in  the  cars,  streets,  houses,  everywhere  men 
assemble  is,  '  Have  you  read  Tom  Corwin's  speech  ? '  Its  boldness  and  high 
moral  tone  meet  the  feelings  here." — Letter  of  Henry  Wilson,  Feb.  24,  1847, 
printed  in  the  Cleveland  Herald,  Feb.  17,  1879. 

"  I  find,  by  all  the  information  I  can  gather,  that  Mr.  Corwin  by  his  late  speech 
has  given  an  impetus  to  opinion,  the  force  of  which  he  did  not  in  all  probability 
himself  foresee."— C.  F.  Adams  to  J.  R.  Giddings,  Life,  p.  199. 

"  His  [Corwin's]  speech  in  February,  1847,  against  the  Mexican  war  was  of 
extraordinary  power,  surpassing  as  an  invective  against  a  great  wrong — a  war 
wicked  at  its  beginning  and  in  its  progress — any  ever  heard  in  Congress  except 
Sumner's  against  slavery." — Memoirs  of  Charles  Sumner,  vol.  iii.,  p.  154. 

2  "  When  gentlemen  tell  me  that  the  Constitution  is  to  protect  that  species  of 
property,  I  answer,  it  is  like  the  protection  of  the  wolf  to  the  lamb.  We  scorn 


A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

purpose.  It  was  an  appeal  to  the  national  conscience  against 
profitable  wrong-doing,  against  the  Viking  instinct  of  the  race 
to  seize  by  force  the  possessions  of  a  weaker  people ;  it  was  an 
appeal  to  justice  as  the  standard  by  which  nations  should 
square  their  conduct,  and  meaning  all  this  it  equalled  in 
moral  grandeur  any  speech  ever  delivered  in  the  Capitol.  In 
another  respect  it  is  worthy  of  high  rank,  being  devoid  of 
the  cant  of  party  and  vulgar  vainglory. 

The  Whigs  of  Ohio  promptly  responded  to  the  bugle-call 
of  their  leader,  whose  fame  as  an  orator  was  their  pride.  A 
mass  meeting  was  held  at  Lebanon  on  August  28th,  over 
which  the  venerable  Jeremiah  Morrow  —  trusted  friend  and 
party  associate  of  Jefferson,  Madison  and  Monroe — presided. 
Others  of  wide  distinction  in  political  affairs  participated. 
Thomas  B.  Stevenson,  closely  allied  to  the  fortunes  of  Mr. 
Clay,  who  was  one  of  the  speakers  of  the  day,  declared  that 
Mr.  Corwin's  speech  on  that  occasion,  on  the  maintenance  of 
the  fundamental  principle  of  free  government,  "was  the 
noblest,  whether  considered  with  reference  to  the  matter  or 
manner,  or  both,"  he  ever  heard.1 

The  resolutions  adopted  at  the  meeting  arraigned  the  Presi 
dent  for  usurpation  of  power,  and  the  "wanton  abuse  by  his 
administration  of  sound  moral  and  political  principles,"  which 

it.  We  deny  it.  It  is  created  property  by  our  law,  and  our  own  State  govern 
ments  are  able  to  carry  that  law  into  effect.  We  do  not  ask  the  aid  of  any 
government  whatever." — Benton's  Debates,  vol.  ix.,  p.  633. 

It  is  well  to  keep  this  declaration  of  John  Randolph's  in  mind  for  future  refer 
ence  when  Calhoun's  "  New  Dogma"  and  the  Dred  Scott  decision  are  reached. 
He  spoke  for  slavery  by  authority. 

1  There  were  times  in  Corwin's  serious  moods  when  it  might  have  been  said  of 
him  as  was  said  of  Burke,  that  his  sentences  fell  on  the  ear  with  the  accent  of 
some  golden-tongued  oracle  of  the  wise  gods.  Unlike  the  method  of  Burke,  Cor 
win's  was  highly  poetic.  He  spoke  in  the  language  of  the  prophets  of  old,  with 
all  of  their  fervor  and  their  wealth  of  imagery.  But  whatever  his  mood,  whether 
grave  or  humorous,  he  never  lost  sight  of  his  object,  which  was  to  instruct  his 
hearers.  In  the  perfect  control  of  his  faculties  and  in  his  knowledge  of  human 
nature  he  more  nearly  resembled  Sheridan  than  any  orator  of  modern  times, 
while  the  skill  with  which  he  alternately  made  captive  the  reason  of  man  and 
played  on  the  passions  of  the  soul  was  more  subtle. 


Whig  Mexican  War  Policy  89 

threatened  the  perpetuity  of  our  republican  institutions;  re 
affirmed  the  language  of  Henry  Clay  in  condemnation  of  the 
war  with  Mexico ;  recalled  to  public  attention  the  prediction 
of  Whig  statesmen  that  the  annexation  of  Texas  would  in 
volve  the  United  States  in  war,  and  "be  the  precursor  of 
further  attempts  for  the  acquisition  of  territory  "  ;  demanded 
the  restoration  of  peace  on  honorable  terms  disconnected  with 
spoliation ;  and  declared  for  the  Wilmot  Proviso  in  these 
words : 

That  we  solemnly  declare  to  the  world  that  from  high  moral  prin 
ciples,  as  well  as  from  our  views  of  sound  national  policy,  we  are 
unchangeably  opposed  to  the  annexation  of  any  territory  to  this 
Union  either  directly  or  by  conquest,  or  indirectly  as  payment  of 
the  expenses  of  the  war;  but  if  additional  territory  be  forced  upon 
us,  we  will  demand  that  "there  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involun 
tary  servitude  therein,  otherwise  than  for  the  punishment  of  crimes." 

It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  Mr.  Berrien,  the  distinguished 
Georgian,  would  go  as  far  as  Mr.  Webster  or  Mr,  Clay  in  dis 
cussing  the  slavery  issue  before  his  constituents,  but  his  opin 
ions  on  the  war  lacked  nothing  of  definiteness.1  The  Whigs 
of  the  North  stood  with  the  Whigs  of  the  South  in  opposition 
to  the  acquisition  of  territory.  But  it  was  reserved  for  Mr. 
Clay,  as  the  generally  accepted  head,  to  give  definite  form  to 
the  party  views.  At  a  mass  meeting  in  Lexington,  which  he 
addressed  with  the  fire  and  spirit  of  his  early  manhood,  he 
read  a  series  of  eight  resolutions  which  he  had  prepared,  which 
constituted  the  party  platform.  The  seventh  was  in  these 
words : 

Resolved^  That  we  do  positively  and  emphatically  disclaim  and 
disavow  any  wish  or  desire,  on  our  part,  to  acquire  any  foreign 
territory  whatever,  for  the  purpose  of  propagating  slavery,  or  of  in 
troducing  slaves  from  the  United  States  into  such  foreign  territory. 

1  Once  when  an  appropriation  for  the  war  was  under  consideration,  Senator  Berrien 
proposed  an  amendment  declaring  the  true  intent  of  Congress  in  making  the  appro 
priation  was,  that  the  war  ought  not  to  be  prosecuted  with  any  view  to  the 
dismemberment  of  Mexican  territory.  Rejected,  24  yeas  to  28  nays — a  party  vote. 


90  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

There  was  a  spontaneous  movement  to  bring  Mr.  Clay  to 
the  front  again,  in  several  counties  of  Ohio  and  in  Pennsyl 
vania,  and  in  the  latter  he  was  put  in  nomination,  of  course 
without  his  knowledge  or  consent.  It  was  with  great  reluct 
ance  that  he  finally  acquiesced  in  the  use  of  his  name,  and 
then  only  upon  the  assurances  of  friends  in  Ohio  and  New 
York,  in  whom  he  had  confidence,  that  in  no  other  way  could 
those  States  be  carried  for  the  Whig  cause. 

Some  of  Mr.  Clay's  old  friends  were  not  frank  with  him, 
but,  leaving  him  uninformed,  engaged  in  a  scheme  to  secure 
the  nomination  by  the  Whig  national  convention  of  General 
Taylor,  whose  brilliant  achievements  in  Mexico  had  made  him 
a  popular  hero.  They  believed  that  in  this  way  only  could 
their  party  meet  with  success.  They  excused  themselves  for 
their  desertion  of  their  old  chief  on  the  ground  that  "the 
urgency  of  the  crisis  does  away  with  all  the  obligations  of 
mere  personal  friendship  and  habitual  personal  allegiance  "  x; 
and  for  their  neglect  to  open  their  minds  to  Mr.  Clay,  on  the 
ground  that  "his  influence  over  the  minds  of  men  is  such  that 
very  few,  perhaps  not  one  in  ten  thousand,  will,  in  conversa 
tion  with  him,  venture  to  advance  anything  which  he  knows 
will  be  personally  disagreeable,  or  omit  to  say  what  he  thinks 
will  gratify  him."2  And  so  they  subjected  him  to  much 
mortification  which  might  have  been  avoided  if  they  had  had 
greater  moral  courage. 

Not  to  the  personal  influence  of  any  great  leader,  but  rather 
to  the  genius  of  her  people,  was  Ohio  indebted  for  her  pre 
eminence  in  political  affairs.  On  her  becoming  a  Whig  State, 
her  own  gifted  sons — Corwin,  McLean,  Giddings  and  Ewing 
— continued  to  follow  the  lead  of  Henry  Clay  loyally,  and 
with  confidence  that  such  a  course  would  promote  true  repub 
lican  principles.  The  complications  of  1848  led  to  a  breach, 

1  Correspondence  of  Thomas  Ewing.     MS. 

*  Ibid.,  May  20,  1848.  I  quote  this  further  remark:  "They  deceived  him 
weakly  not  wickedly.  .  .  .  They  deceived  him,  but  it  was  by  reason  of  his 
mental  superiority  and  their  mental  submission,  and  he  was  willing  to  be 
deceived." 


Nomination  of  Taylor  91 

which  was  not  healed  for  several  years — in  fact,  not  until  the 
organization  of  the  new  party  that  first  captured  the  popular 
branch  of  Congress  and  later  placed  Mr.  Lincoln  in  the  White 
House.  When  it  became  apparent  that  Mr.  Clay  would  not 
be  a  candidate,  Ohio  immediately  divided  on  presidential 
preferences.  An  effort  was  made  in  the  Whig  State  conven 
tion  to  nominate  Mr.  Corwin.  This  was  defeated  by  the 
friends  of  Judge  McLean  and  the  non-committal  men,  many  of 
whom  preferred  General  Taylor.1  Thereupon  the  chairman 
of  the  State  Central  Committee  issued  a  circular  to  the  Whigs 
of  the  State,  advising,  as  a  means  of  keeping  down  the  Taylor 
movement,  to  recommend  Mr.  Clay,  and  stating  that  Mr. 
Corwin  was  the  undoubted  choice  of  Ohio.  This  embarrass 
ment  of  great  men,  which  confronted  the  Whigs  of  Ohio  in 
1848,  continued  to  disturb  party  harmony.  With  but  few 
exceptions,2  since  then,  it  has  been  impossible  to  secure  a  solid 
delegation  in  any  national  convention  in  support  of  the  claims 
of  a  citizen  of  that  State. 

Both  Corwin  and  McLean  were  looked  upon  with  favor  by 
the  anti-slavery  men  of  the  country.  We  have  seen  with  what 
enthusiasm  they  received  Senator  Corwin's  nth  of  February 
speech.  Judge  McLean  had  not  only  approved  of  its  senti 
ments,  but  he  had  furnished  the  Whigs  with  an  opinion  that 
Congress  had  the  power  to  put  an  end  to  the  war  on  just  and 
honorable  principles.3  The  young  Whigs  preferred  Corwin. 

1  Correspondence  of  Thomas  Ewing.     MS. 

2  The  exceptions  were  in  1876  when  Wade,  Sherman,  Garfield,  Taft  and  Den- 
nison  cordially  united  in  support  of  Governor  Hayes,  and  the  conventions  of  1896 
and  1900. 

3  This  opinion  was  in  the  form  of  a  letter,  which  found  a  place  in  the  National 
Intelligencer,  Jan.  29,   1848,  and  was  in  these  words:    "I  think  that  Congress, 
who  unquestionably  have  the  power,  should  put  an  end  to  the  war  on  just  and 
honorable  principles.     After  agreeing  upon  the  terms  on  which  a  treaty  should  be 
made,  they  should  call  upon  the  executive,  by  resolution,  to  offer  peace  to  Mexico 
upon  that  basis,  and  during  the  negotiations  hostilities  should  be  suspended.     If 
the  President  shall  refuse  to  do  this,  in  the  military  appropriation  bills  the  army 
should  be  required  to  take  such  positions  as  shall  carry  out  the  views  of  Congress. 
These  bills  the  President  could  not  veto,  and  he  would  be  bound  by  their  require 
ments.     This  may  be  done  by  the  House." 


92  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

The  anti-slavery  men  of  Massachusetts  hoped  for  the  privilege 
of  following  his  banner,  but  they  wanted  him  to  be  as  radical 
as  themselves,  which  would  have  rendered  his  nomination  by 
his  own  party  impracticable.  Mr.  Giddings  was  the  leader  of 
this  class  in  the  West.  "Mr.  Corwin,"  said  he,  "can  expect 
the  anti-slavery  Whigs  to  support  him  for  President  on  no 
other  ground  than  that  of  maintaining  our  doctrines  and 
policy."  1  That  policy  was  the  creation  of  a  new  party.  Mr. 
Corwin  has  been  criticised  for  not  falling  in  with  the  views  of 
these  admiring  friends,  and,  because  of  his  subsequent  support 
of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  has  been  accused  of 
vacillation.  Doubtless  he  had  something  to  regret  at  a  later 
day ;  but  he  has  not  been  heard  on  his  views  of  the  political 
situation  prior  to  the  assembling  of  the  national  conventions 
in  1848.  It  is  certain  that  he  believed  that  the  Whig  party 
was  the  only  party  capable  of  giving  the  country  good  govern 
ment;  and  that  he  thought  it  practicable  to  secure  harmony 
within  the  party  by  making  the  contest  turn  on  the  question 
of  the  acquisition  of  territory.2  He  did  not  have  any  selfish 

1  Life  of  Joshua  R.  Giddings,  p.  213. 

2  In  this  connection  the  following  letter,  which  is  here  made  public  for  the  first 
time,  will  be  read  with  interest.     It  is  addressed  to  the  Hon.  John  J.  Crittenden  in 
reply  to  a  letter  on  the  presidency. 

"  LEBANON,  2d  Sept.,  1847. 

"  DEAR  SIR: 

"  You  misunderstood  my  wishes,  if  you  inferred  that  I  expected  General 
Taylor  to  make  any  explicit  avowal  of  his  opinions  on  particular  points  now,  while 
he  is  at  the  head  of  an  army  in  the  field.  I  do  not  think  he  should,  nay,  I  do  not 
think  it  quite  safe  as  a  precedent  that  he  should  be  an  avowed  candidate  while  in 
that  position.  That  nomination  by  Gushing  on  the  4th  of  July  was  a  scene  which 
I  hope  will  never,  in  our  history,  be  repeated.  Yet  I  look  for  a  similar  move 
ment  in  Scott's  army  whenever  he  shall  be  safely  lodged  in  the  city  of  Mexico, 
especially  if  that  so  much-desired  event  should  be  preceded  by  a  bloody  battle.  I 
know  well  how  radically  we  differ  in  our  opinions  touching  this  war,  and  I  am 
sure  this  difference  in  some  sort,  must  bias  perhaps  both  of  us  in  our  estimations 
of  the  generals  who  fight  it. 

"  Whatever  my  own  wishes  may  be,  as  to  the  person  to  be  selected,  is  of  no  im 
portance.  I  am  sure  I  cannot  be  mistaken  in  this,  that  the  Whigs  of  this  State 
(and  I  think  I  may  say  the  same  of  all  the  non-slaveholding  States  except  Illinois) 
will  not  vote  for  any  man  who  avows  himself  favorable  to  the  acquisition  of  terri 
tory,  without  any  security  against  the  establishment  of  slavery  in  it.  On  this 


Nomination  of  Taylor  93 

purpose,  and  for  this  reason,  perhaps,  he  gave  less  heed  to  the 
exhortations  of  the  impatient  anti-slavery  Whigs. 

point  there  is  a  strength  and  fervor  of  feeling  which  renders  it  useless  to  attempt 
reason  and  persuasion.  General  Taylor  with  all  his  military  popularity  has  no 
such  hold  on  the  affections  and  confidence  of  the  Whigs  as  Mr.  Clay  had  in  1844, 
yet  we  could  barely  elect  him  in  Ohio,  and  in  New  York  he  failed  because  he  was 
not  personally  as  well  as  politically  opposed  to  the  annexation  of  Texas. 

"  If  the  President  should  get  a  treaty  ceding  to  us  any  territory  not  a  part  of 
Texas  (which  is  already  in  the  Union)  and  the  Wilmot  Proviso  should  be  a  ques 
tion  pending  at  the  next  presidential  election,  I  feel  confident  we  shall  fail  in 
electing  any  Whig.  The  Whigs  of  the  South  will  not  sustain  any  man  in  favor 
of  the  Proviso,  and  the  Whigs  of  the  North  will  not  vote  for  any  man  who  is 
opposed  to  it.  The  Democrats  see  and  know  this,  and  only  wait  for  such  a 
division  to  unite,  as  they  only  can,  on  some  ground  to  be  suggested  at  the  time, 
and  thus  united  of  course  they  will  whip  us.  Hence  arises  the  great  necessity  of 
taking  early  and  strong  ground  against  any  further  acquisition.  Settle  on  that 
and  the  Wilmot  Proviso  dies,  and  with  it  dies  every  political  topic  connected  with 
the  subject,  except  it  be  emancipation  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Whilst  this 
would  do  justice  to  Mexico,  it  would  restore  comparative  tranquillity  to  us.  It 
would  preserve  in  its  entire  strength  the  Whig  party,  the  only  party  to  which  we 
can  look  for  good  government.  Mexico  can  secure  to  us  the  miserable  two  millions 
claimed  by  our  citizens,  by  a  mortgage  on  specific  revenues  or  mines,  or  not  secure 
it  at  all.  What  is  this  paltry  sum  to  us  who  can  lavish  fifty  or  one  hundred  millions 
on  a  frivolous  and  imaginary  point  of  honor  ? 

"  If  this  could  be  done  before  a  Whig  convention  meets  in  May  1848,  and 
General  Taylor  by  such  convention  should  be  recommended  to  the  Whigs  of  Ohio, 
I  think  we  could  carry  him  ;  or,  if  he  should  (the  question  of  acquisition  being 
still  open)  declare  himself  hostile  to  acquisition,  either  by  treaty  or  conquest,  per 
haps  then  also  we  could  carry  him  through  in  Ohio.  You  in  Kentucky  will  think 
it  strange  that  the  people  of  Ohio  are  not  so  enthusiastic  in  their  gratitude  to 
General  Taylor  as  to  forget  for  his  sake  all  the  cherished  principles  in  politics 
which  we  have  so  sedulously  taught  and  believed  for  the  last  twenty  years  ;  or, 
perhaps,  you  expect  them  to  believe  General  Taylor  to  profess  and  believe  them 
all  because  he  fought  bravely  and  skilfully  in  the  field.  I  saw  when  in  Kentucky 
the  essential  points  of  difference  in  the  characters  of  the  masses  in  Ohio  and  your 
State.  Your  men,  young  and  old,  generally  have  more  leisure  than  ours.  Such 
a  people  as  yours  always  was  and  always  will  be  a  martial  people.  They  will  love 
war,  for  it  furnishes  employment,  which  brings  with  it  renown.  They  will 
cherish  for  military  exploits,  even  a  factitious,  unphilosophical  admiration — it  is 
their  favorite  vocation.  I  mean  to  say  nothing  of  the  merits  of  the  two  systems, 
social  and  political.  I  only  wish  to  account  to  you  for  the  existence  of  certain 
opinions  in  your  State,  which  you  will  see  could  not  be  expected  to  extend  to  our 
side  of  the  river. 

"What  is  to  be  the  effect  on  parties  of  Gov.  Wright's  demise?  Will  it  not 
throw  the  Democratic  party  of  the  North  on  Mr.  Van  Buren  ?  I  incline  strongly 


94  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Mr.  Corwin  believed  with  Mr.  Greeley 1  and  Mr.  Seward 
that  the  influence  of  the  Whig  party  was  against  the  extension 
of  slavery,  and  that  the  party  offered  the  practical  line  of  po 
litical  action.  Any  course  that  would  alienate  the  emancipa 
tionists  of  Virginia,  Kentucky,  Missouri  and  Tennessee,  would 
be  a  mistake.  Hence  the  impression  sought  to  be  conveyed 
by  some  writers  that  Mr.  Corwin  was  favorably  disposed  to 
wards  a  party  distinctively  anti-slavery  at  this  time  would 
seem  to  be  unwarranted.  He  held  with  Mr.  Webster  that 
public  sentiment  in  the  North  antagonistic  to  slavery  had  been 
the  outgrowth  of  Whig  effort,  that  Free  Soil  was  Whig  doctrine 
which  others  were  seeking  to  appropriate,  and  that  to  abandon 
a  national  organization  capable  of  winning  victories  and  ob 
taining  political  control  would  be  inexcusable  folly.  The 
Whig  majority  in  the  Thirtieth  Congress — a  majority  that 
meant  a  loss  to  the  Democracy  of  seventy-one  Congress  dis- 

to  that  opinion.  If  this  should  be  the  result,  will  not  the  Whig  party  in  imitation 
of  that  movement,  and  partly  because  they  really  prefer  Mr.  Clay  to  anybody, 
bring  out  their  old  favorite  ?  I  confess  I  should  feel  quite  easy  and  well  satisfied 
if  such  were  this  day  the  condition  of  the  contest.  I  have  supposed  that  the 
singular  manifestation  of  regard  shown  in  Mr.  Clay's  recent  visit  to  the  East 
would  itself  tend  powerfully  to  make  him  the  Whig  candidate.  If,  however,  he 
should  be  left  in  retirement,  I  frankly  confess  I  do  not  see  any  one  left  who  is  so 
likely  to  succeed  as  General  Taylor.  I  wish  also  to  say  I  am  satisfied  he  is  a 
Whig,  but  I  could  not  satisfy  others.  They,  the  people,  must  have  it  from  him 
self  at  some  proper  time  before  he  is  finally  chosen.  So  it  appears  to  me.  His 
recent  letters  have  rather  increased  than  allayed  public  distrust  as  to  his  real 
opinions  on  some  subjects  which  they  consider  vital.  .  .  . 
"  Give  my  best  regards  to  Letcher  and  Harlan. 

"  Truly  your  friend, 

"  THO.  CORWIN." 

1  The  New  York  Tribune  during  the  period  was  aggressively  anti-slavery  as 
well  as  aggressively  Whig.  It  kept  before  its  readers  the  statement  that  the  slave 
power  relied  wholly  upon  the  Democratic  party. 

At  Wilmington,  in  1848,  Mr.  Corwin  referred  to  the  statement,  freely  made  by 
Cass's  friends,  that  he  was  pledged  to  veto  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  and  then  asked, 
Was  there  a  Whig  in  the  Northern  States  who  was  opposed  to  free  soil  ?  Every 
Whig  member  in  the  free  States  supported  the  Oregon  bill.  What  better  Free 
Soil  party  did  the  Abolitionists  want  than  the  Whig  party  ? 


Nomination  of  Taylor  95 

tricts1 — was  the  popular  verdict  on  two  policies:  the  Demo 
cratic,  practically  exemplified  in  the  acts  of  the  Polk  adminis 
tration  ;  the  other,  as  indicated  in  the  votes  and  speeches  of 
the  Whig  members  of  Congress  and  in  the  Whig  press. 

The  policy  of  the  Whig  leaders  was  enforced  in  the  organi 
zation  of  the  Thirtieth  Congress,  in  the  selection  of  Robert  C. 
Winthrop,  of  Massachusetts,  for  Speaker.  In  him  the  party 
found  a  capable  and  tactful  leader  on  the  eve  of  a  presidential 
contest,  who  sought  to  allay  excitement  and  to  prevent  any 
thing  being  done  that  might  lead  to  a  division,  or  endanger 
the  party  prospects  in  the  doubtful  States.  While  the  session 
of  1847-48  did  not  wholly  avoid  discussion  of  the  all-engross 
ing  topic,2  it  closed  without  any  change  in  the  relative  posi 
tions  of  the  great  parties.  While  army  supplies  were  voted, 

1  The  practical  division  in  the  Twenty-ninth  Congress  stood:    Democrats    142, 
Whigs  79  ;  in  the  Thirtieth   Congress,  Whigs    118,    Democrats    no.       In   both 
cases  such  anti-slavery  Whigs  as  John  Quincy  Adams,  John  G.   Palfrey,  J.   R. 
Giddings  and  Joseph  M.  Root  are  included.     The  death  of  Mr.  Adams,  Febru 
ary  23,  1848,  left  a  vacancy  which  was  filled  by  the  election  of  Horace  Mann,  as 
pronounced  an  anti-slavery  man  as  his  predecessor,   an  able,  eloquent  advocate, 
capable  of  great  personal  sacrifices.     Another  vacancy  in  the  Thirtieth  Congress 
was  filled  by  the  election  of   Horace  Greeley.     In  the  Congress  sat  two  future 
Presidents,  Abraham  Lincoln  of  Illinois  and  Andrew  Johnson  of  Tennessee. 

2  April   13,    1848,    eight  slaves   attempted   to   escape   from  the   District  on  the 
schooner  Pear!,  but  were  recaptured  and  lodged  in  jail.     Captain  Dray  ton  and 
Mate  Sayres  of  the  vessel  were  arrested  and  also  lodged  in  prison.     This  incident 
led  to  a  riotous  attack  on  the  office  of  the  National  Era,  an  anti-slavery  paper 
edited  by  Gamaliel  Bailey,  by  the  disorderly  element  of  Washington,  and  to  an 
angry  discussion  of  the  slavery  question  in  both  Houses  of  Congress.     When  Mr. 
Giddings,    accompanied  by  two  friends,   called  at  the  jail    to    see    Drayton  and 
Sayres,  he  was  treated  with  great  rudeness  and  his  life  was  threatened.     Mr.  Pal 
frey  proposed  a  special  committee  to  inquire  if  any  further  legislation  was  re 
quired  to  protect  life  and  property. 

Mr.  Hale  introduced  in  the  Senate  a  bill  to  make  the  residents  of  Washington 
responsible  for  damages  committed  by  mobs.  It  was  simply  extending  a  Mary 
land  law  to  the  District.  There  was  no  mention  of  slavery,  but  Mr.  Calhoun,  Mr. 
Foote  and  other  Southerners  made  it  apply  to  that  subject  and  assailed  the  New 
Hampshire  Senator  with  great  virulence.  Foote  assured  Hale  that  if  he  visited 
Mississippi  the  people  would  receive  him  with  shouts  of  joy  and  proceed  to  sus 
pend  him  from  the  tallest  tree,  in  which  ceremony  he  would  be  delighted  to  par 
ticipate.  (This  savage  speech  won  him  the  nick-name  of  "  Hangman  Foote.") 
Hale  calmly  returned  the  grim  compliment  by  extending  a  courteous  invitation  to 


96  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

the  House  did  not  fail  to  condemn  the  false  declaration  that 
(<  war  existed  by  act  of  Mexico."  And  while  peace,  concluded 
with  that  power  in  the  winter  of  1848,  closed  this  chapter,  it 
did  not  restore  the  administration  to  popular  favor.  This  was 
the  situation  when  the  Whig  national  convention  met  in 
Philadelphia,  June  7th,  and  selected  General  Zachary  Taylor 
and  Millard  Fillmore  as  the  candidates  of  that  party. 

The  result  created  dissatisfaction  among  the  delegates  repre 
senting  anti-slavery  constituencies,  which  became  more  pro 
nounced  as  the  convention  refused  to  entertain  a  resolution 
drafted  by  the  Ohio  delegation,  declaring  that  Congress  had 
the  power  and  that  it  was  its  duty  to  prevent  the  introduction 
and  existence  of  slavery  in  the  territories.1  The  convention 
by  adopting  no  platform  sought  to  make  the  canvass  turn  on 
the  personal  popularity  of  the  candidate. 

The  devoted  friends  of  Mr.  Clay  made  a  determined  stand 
for  him  in  the  convention,  and  if  Ohio  and  Kentucky  had 
proved  faithful,  his  nomination  might  have  been  accomplished.8 
The  course  of  Ohio  in  voting  for  Scott  simply  meant  that  the 
friends  of  Corwin  and  McLean  could  not  agree  that  either 
should  be  put  forward  as  the  choice  of  the  State,  and  a  few 
who  were  in  the  Taylor  intrigue  were  able  to  interpose  against 
Mr.  Clay. 

Henry  Wilson,  afterwards  Vice-President,  and  Mr.  Allen, 

Foote  to  visit  New  Hampshire,  where  the  people  would  be  happy  to  listen  to  his 
arguments  and  engage  in  an  intellectual  contest.  It  was  during  this  debate  that 
Jefferson  Davis  said  that  the  state  of  slavery  was  the  happiest  relation  labor  could 
sustain  to  capital.  Crittenden  and  Douglas  rebuked  the  fire-eaters  for  their  in 
tolerance.  The  latter  said  such  exhibitions  made  Abolitionists. 

1  Rise  and  Fall,  vol.  ii.,  p.  135,  where  the  statement  is  made  that  John  Sher 
man  of  Ohio  deprecated  the  introduction  of  the  resolution.  Another  resolution, 
proposed  by  John  A.  Bingham,  of  the  Ohio  delegation,  declaring  that  "  the  Whig 
party,  through  its  representatives,  agrees  to  abide  by  the  nomination  of  Gen. 
Taylor,  on  condition  that  he  will  accept  the  nomination  of  the  Whig  party  and 
adhere  to  its  great  fundamental  principles — no  extension  of  slavery,  no  acquisition 
of  foreign  territory  by  conquest,  protection  to  American  industry  and  opposition 
to  executive  patronage," — was  received  with  mingled  cheers  and  hisses,  and  was 
ruled  out  of  order. 

12  The  first  ballot  stood:  Webster,  2.2  ;  Scott,  43  ;  Clay,  97  ;  Taylor,  in.  The 
last  was  nominated  on  the  fourth  ballot. 


The  Free  Soil  Movement  97 

of  the  Massachusetts  delegation,  declared  in  the  convention 
their  determination  to  oppose  the  nominees  before  the  people. 
Samuel  Galloway  and  Lewis  D.  Campbell,  of  Ohio,  spoke  in 
the  same  strain  of  condemnation  of  the  action  of  the  conven 
tion,  but  they  did  not  withdraw  from  the  hall  as  did  Messrs. 
Wilson  and  Allen.  A  meeting  called  by  Mr.  Wilson  to  con 
sider  what  was  best  to  be  done  in  this  crisis  was  attended  by 
only  fifteen  of  the  delegates;  but  it  was  the  inception  of  a 
movement  that  had  far-reaching  results.  A  committee,  con 
sisting  of  Joshua  R.  Giddings,  Charles  Allen  and  John  C. 
Vaughan,  was  appointed  to  call  a  convention,  at  an  early  day, 
of  all  who  were  opposed  to  the  election  of  Cass  and  Taylor. 
A  call  had  already  been  made  for  a  Free  Territory  convention 
at  Columbus,  Ohio,  on  the  22d  of  June,  for  the  purpose  of 
preparing  the  way  for  a  new  party,  which,  at  the  instigation 
of  the  Philadelphia  convention,  recommended  the  holding  of 
a  national  convention  at  Buffalo,  August  Qth,  for  the  purpose 
of  nominating  candidates  for  President  and  Vice-President. 

A  mass  convention  assembled  at  Worcester,  June  28th, 
which  was  addressed  by  Charles  Sumner,  Charles  Francis 
Adams,  E.  Rockwood  Hoar,  Joshua  R.  Giddings  and  Lewis 
D.  Campbell,  approved  the  course  of  the  two  Massachusetts 
delegates  in  withdrawing  from  the  Philadelphia  convention, 
commended  Mr.  Webster  for  not  endorsing  the  nomination  of 
General  Taylor,  and  invited  an  alliance  with  the  Barnburners 
of  New  York,  who  at  Utica  had  put  Martin  Van  Buren  in 
nomination  soon  after  their  return  from  Baltimore.  The 
spirit  of  the  Worcester  convention  was  expressed  in  a  resolu 
tion  which  declared  "that  Massachusetts  wears  no  chains  and 
spurns  all  bribes."  In  this  convention  Mr.  Sumner  traced 
the  beginnings  of  the  separate  Free  Soil  organization  in 
Massachusetts,  which  afterward  grew  into  the  Republican 
party.  It  may  be  remarked,  however,  that  the  Ohio  Free 
Soil  Territory  convention  of  June  22d,  which  organized 
the  opponents  of  the  Whig  and  Democratic  candidates  of  that 
State  and  issued  a  call  for  a  convention  to  be  held  at  Buffalo 
in  August,  was  suggested  by  Salmon  P.  Chase  early  in  the 

VOL.  I.— 7. 


98  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

previous  winter  and  met  in  obedience  to  a  call  signed  by  more 
than  three  thousand  citizens  representing  all  parties.1  The 
Columbus  and  Worcester  conventions  were  parts  of  the  same 
movement,  destined  to  effect  a  political  revolution.  It  was 
decided  at  the  Columbus  convention  to  make  approval  of  the 
Wilmot  Proviso  a  test  in  supporting  Gubernatorial,  Legis 
lative  and  Congress  candidates,  which  led  to  surprising  and 
important  complications. 

The  citizens  of  eighteen  States  dissatisfied  with  the  tendency 
of  national  politics  were  represented  in  the  Buffalo  convention 
of  the  Qth  of  August  by  four  hundred  and  sixty-five  delegates. 
The  Barnburners  had  come  into  the  movement  not  to  promote 
any  high  moral  principle,  but  because  it  promised  to  increase 
their  power  in  local  politics  and  to  revenge  them  on  Mr.  Cass. 
It  was  a  singular  union  of  antagonistic  elements,  but  the 
genuine  anti-slavery  enthusiasm  supplied  by  those  who  had 
been  under  the  moulding  influence  of  James  G.  Birney,  Gerrit 
Smith,  Arthur  Tappan,  Joshua  R.  Giddings  and  the  Massa 
chusetts  Whigs  for  years,  pervaded  the  assembly  and  was  not 
spent  when  the  campaign  closed.  Mr.  Chase  presided,  and 
the  resolutions  that  were  adopted  embodied  his  views  of 
political  policy  slightly  modified  to  reconcile  the  Whig  element 
in  the  combination.  These,  a  few  years  later,  became  the 
principal  planks  in  the  platform  of  the  new  Republican  party. 
The  nomination  of  Martin  Van  Buren  for  President  and  Charles 
Francis  Adams  for  Vice-President  by  this  convention  created 
a  feeling  of  uncertainty  in  the  ranks  of  both  of  the  old  parties. 
John  P.  Hale,  who  had  received  the  nomination  of  the  Liberty 
party,  withdrew  his  name,  and  the  various  anti-slavery  socie 
ties  and  movements  were  quickly  merged  in  the  Free  Soil 
party  under  the  banner  of  Martin  Van  Buren — the  "Northern 

1  The  call  was  written  by  Mr.  Chase  and  evidenced  the  master  political  hand. 
Few  of  his  contemporary  statesmen  were  as  gifted  in  persuasive  argument  as  he. 
As  the  call  preceded  the  action  of  the  Whig  and  Democratic  national  conventions, 
it  expressed  the  hope  that  they  might  nominate  candidates  "  worthy  of  the  confi 
dence  of  non-slaveholding  freemen  "  ;  disappointed  in  this,  the  North  should  unite 
on  some  plan  of  action  to  resist  by  all  constitutional  means  the  extension  of 
slavery  into  the  territories. 


The  Free  Soil  Movement  99 

man  with  Southern  principles."  Only  the  Garrisonian  Abo 
litionists  refused  any  share  in  the  political  scheming  of  the 
time,  which  even  a  friend  as  sympathetic  as  James  Russell 
Lowell  thought  a  mistake.1  Men  in  every  section  for  an  in 
terested  purpose  were  changing  their  positions  and  forming 
new  relations  only  to  be  thrown  off  in  a  few  months  by  many 
as  readily  as  they  had  been  formed. 

The  anti-slavery  Whigs,  by  the  selection  of  a  soldier  and 
slaveholder  for  the  nominee  of  their  party,  were  placed  in  a 
position  of  great  embarrassment.  The  dissatisfaction  in  the 
State  of  New  York,  which  extended  to  every  part,  found  ex 
pression  in  great  popular  demonstrations  in  favor  of  support 
ing  Mr.  Clay  as  the  only  Whig  candidate,  and  these  did  not 
cease  until  that  statesman  publicly  declined  to  permit  his  name 
to  be  used.  It  was  denied  that  General  Taylor  had  any  claim 
on  the  Whigs,  as  he  declared  his  independence  of  party;  and 
a  league  for  the  preservation  of  Whig  principles,  which  it  was 
said  were  sacrificed  at  Philadelphia,  was  actually  formed.2 

The  publication  of  a  letter  from  General  Taylor,  about  this 
time,  written  in  a  spirit  of  candor,  and  displaying  both  dignity 
and  ability,  explaining  his  relations  to  parties  and  the  presi 
dency,  in  which  he  said  he  had  declared  himself  to  be  a  Whig 
on  all  proper  occasions — a  Whig,  decided  but  not  ultra  in  his 
opinions,  opened  the  way  for  a  consolidation  of  Whig  support. 
Governor  Seward,  Horace  Greeley  and  Thurlow  Weed  had 
already  made  their  decision,  and  were  conducting  a  remarkable 
canvass  against  the  Free  Soil  coalition.  They  did  not  believe 
in  the  sincerity  of  the  conversion  of  Martin  Van  Buren. 

1  "  I  do  not  agree  with  the  Abolitionists  in  their  disunion  and  non-voting  theories. 
They  treat  ideas  as  ignorant  persons  do  cherries.     They  think  them  unwholesome 
unless  they  are  swallowed  stones  and  all.     Garrison  is  so  used  to  standing  alone 
that,  like  Daniel  Boone,  he  moves  away  as  the  world  creeps  up  to  him,  and  goes 
farther  into  the  wilderness.     He  considers  every  step  a  step  forward,  though  it  be 
over  the  edge  of  a  precipice." — Letters,  vol.  i.,  p.  125. 

It  should  be  remarked  also  that  James  G.  Birney  and  Gerrit  Smith  refused  to 
support  Van  Buren  because  of  his  pro-slavery  record.  Mr.  Smith  was  voted  for 
for  President  by  a  faction  of  Liberty  men. 

2  The  statement  made  by  the  Hon.  J.  L.  White,  that  "  Henry  Clay  and  the  prin 
ciples  of  the  Whig  party  were  buried  in  one  grave  at  Philadelphia,"  inspired  the 


TOO  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

There  was  lacking  the  evidence  of  a  miracle,  as  in  the  case  of 
St.  Paul,  and  nothing  less  than  the  diract  interposition  of  the 
Almighty  could  change  the  heart  of  such  a  crafty  politician  as 
the  Kinderhook  statesman.  Placed  in  the  position  of  being 

following  verses,  which  were  sung  with  fine  effect  at  a  gathering  of  ten  thousand 
people  at  Vauxhall  Garden  on  the  7th  of  September,  and  which  illustrate  the 
party  feeling  better  than  pages  of  description  : 

THE  RESURRECTION. 

Whigs  of  the  North  !  come  proudly  forth  ! 

The  time  's  arrived  for  action  ! 
The  traitors  say  they  Ve  buried  Clay 

Let 's  have  a  resurrection  ! 
Our  chief  we  '11  save,  and  in  his  grave 

We  '11  bury  his  betrayers  ; 
Or  if  too  late,  we  still  can  sate 

Our  vengeance  on  his  slayers. 

The  life  blood  starts  within  our  hearts 

Whene'er  his  name  is  spoken. 
'T  is  he  alone  can  form  in  one 

Our  ranks  dispersed  and  broken. 
Truth  crushed,  not  slain,  will  rise  again, 

And  so  will  Truth's  defenders, 
Reviled  and  scoffed  and  beaten  oft, 

Our  Harry  ne'er  surrenders. 

On  him,  so  spurned,  all  eyes  are  turned, 

His  Whiggery  ne'er  was  doubted  ; 
He  will  not  shame  to  own  the  name 

Of  Whig,  where'er  't  is  shouted  ; 
A  glorious  Whig — an  ultra  Whig — 

A  Whig  true,  firm  and  steady, 
Is  just  the  one  to  lead  us  on — 

Not  "  Rough"  but  always  "  Ready." 

Beneath  his  flag  we  need  no  "  Bragg" 

Nor  deem  that  "grape's"  so  mighty  ; 
Our  cause  is  just — in  this  we  trust, 

And  care  not  for  "  Old  Whitey  "  ; 
But  heart  and  hand,  we're  bound  to  stand 

With  him  who  left  us  never, 
And  raise  once  more  the  shout  of  yore — 

Brave  Harry  Clay  forever  ! 


The  Free  Soil  Movement  101 

compelled  to  form  an  unholy  alliance,  of  giving  their  support 
where  it  would  benefit  Cass,  who  was  pledged  to  veto  any 
action  of  Congress  interfering  with  slavery  in  the  territories ' ; 
or  of  standing  by  the  Whig  party  of  the  North  which  had 
been  firmly,  consistently  and  efficiently  on  the  side  of  no  slave 
territory,2  they  could  not  hesitate  as  to  their  duty. 

In  a  powerful  speech  at  Marshfield,  Mr.  Webster  also  re 
ferred  to  the  inconsistency  involved  in  Whigs  supporting  Mr. 
Van  Buren.  He  said  that  if  he  were  to  express  confidence  in 
Mr.  Van  Buren  and  his  politics  on  any  question,  "the  scene 
would  border  upon  the  ludicrous,  if  not  upon  the  contempti 
ble."  They  had  always  been  in  opposition,  and  he  humor 
ously  added  that,  if  they  were  to  find  themselves  under  the 
Free  Soil  flag,  he  was  sure  that  Mr.  Van  Buren  with  his  cus 
tomary  good  nature  would  laugh.  If  nobody  were  present, 
both  would  laugh  at  the  strange  occurrences  and  stranger 
jumbles  of  political  life  that  should  have  brought  them  to  sit 
cosily  and  snugly,  side  by  side,  on  the  same  platform.  The 
Free  Soilers  in  Michigan  and  Ohio  made  an  alliance  with  the 
Democrats,  which  effectively  alienated  the  Whigs  from  Mr. 
Giddings  with  whom  they  had  previously  acted.  The  pro- 
slavery  record  of  Mr.  Cass  was  so  pronounced,  and  the  alter 
native  before  the  voters  was  so  clearly  the  election  of  Cass  or 
Taylor,  that  the  charge  of  inconsistency  was  made  with  con 
siderable  force  by  the  Whig  speakers.  Corwin  said  the  Free 
Soilers  were  emulating  the  glory  won  by  fifteen  thousand 
Liberty  men  of  New  York  in  1844  in  electing  James  K.  Polk, 
but  with  even  a  more  reckless  abandonment  of  principle. 
Then  their  candidate  was  an  anti-slavery  man  :  now  one  whose 
career  had  been  characterized  by  a  shameless  disregard  of 
human  rights.  The  trading  carried  on  between  the  Free 
Soilers  and  the  Democrats  made  the  contest  in  Ohio  one  of 
the  most  uncertain  in  the  political  history  of  that  State.  The 
prevalence  of  a  sentiment  against  the  extension  of  slavery 

1  The  Nashville    Union  made  the  distinct  statement  that  Cass  was  pledged  to 
the  South  to  veto  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  which  was  never  denied. 
8  New  York  Tribune. 


102  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

had  influenced  the  Democratic  politicians  in  State  convention 
to  adopt  the  following  resolution  : 

That  the  people  of  Ohio  now,  as  they  have  always  done,  look 
upon  the  institution  of  slavery  in  any  part  of  the  Union  as  an  evil, 
and  unfavorable  to  the  full  development  of  the  spirit  and  practical 
benefits  of  free  institutions;  and  that,  entertaining  these  sentiments, 
they  will  at  the  same  time  feel  it  to  be  their  duty  to  use  all  the 
power  clearly  given  by  the  national  compact,  to  prevent  the  in 
crease,  to  mitigate  and  eradicate  the  evil.1 

This  action  made  cooperation  between  the  Democrats  and 
the  Free  Soilers  easy.  Mr.  Chase  optimistically  saw  the 
Democratic  party  of  the  North  transformed  into  the  Free 
Democracy,  perhaps  with  himself  officiating  as  high  priest. 
The  Whigs  barely  succeeded  in  electing  their  governor  and  one- 
half  of  the  Legislature  in  the  October  election,  and  had  the  mor 
tification  of  seeing  the  electoral  vote  of  the  State  cast  for  Cass. 

The  closeness  of  the  vote  in  October  led  to  embarrassing 
complications  in  connection  with  the  organization  of  the  Legis 
lature  which  convened  in  December,  1848.  Chaos  ruled  at 
the  capital  until  the  4th  of  January,  when  an  organization  was 
secured  by  an  alliance  between  the  Democrats  and  Dr.  Norton 
S.  Townsend,  of  Lorain  County,  and  John  F.  Morse,  of  Lake, 
representatives  of  the  Free  Soil  party,  who  held  the  balance 
of  power  in  joint  ballot  of  Senate  and  House.  Under  a  new 
apportionment  law,  enacted  by  the  previous  General  Assembly, 
the  Whigs  of  Hamilton  County  elected  two  representatives  in 
a  single  district ;  the  Democrats  elected  two  under  the  old  law 
which  made  the  entire  county  one  district.  The  clerk  of  the 
county — a  Democrat — gave  certificates  to  Pugh  and  Pierce, 
the  Democratic  candidates,  on  the  ground  that  the  new  law 
was  unconstitutional.  A  contest  followed,  and  its  settlement 

1  Warden,  in  his  Life  of  Salmon  P.  Chase,  leaves  the  reader  to  infer  that  Allen 
G.  Thurman  was  the  author  of  this  resolution.  As  chairman  of  the  committee 
he  reported  this  with  other  resolutions.  The  contest  over  the  resolution  on  slavery 
in  the  committee  was  bitter  and  lasted  through  the  night.  The  authorship  lies 
between  Jacob  R.  Brinkerhoff,  Rufus  P.  Spalding  and  John  Brough.  My  infor 
mation  is  that  it  was  in  the  handwriting  of  the  last. 


Campaign  of  1848  103 

was  a  part  of  the  deal  by  which  the  House  was  organized.  In 
addition  to  Speaker  and  Clerk  and  minor  offices  of  the  House, 
a  United  States  Senator  was  to  be  elected,  and  two  judges  of 
the  Supreme  Court  were  to  be  appointed — all  places  of  great 
importance,  the  disposal  of  which  actually  fell  to  the  two  Free 
Soil  members.  Desiring  to  promote  the  anti-slavery  cause, 
they  made  their  support  depend  upon  the  repeal  of  the  black 
laws  and  the  election  of  a  Free  Soiler  to  the  United  States 
Senate.  A  coalition  was  first  proposed  to  the  Whigs,  Mr. 
Giddings  being  the  choice  for  Senator,  but  because  of  the  re 
fusal  of  two  Whigs  to  vote  for  him  it  was  abandoned.  The 
coalition  was  made  with  the  Democrats,  and  Salmon  P.  Chase 
was  chosen  Senator,  the  first  step  in  a  great  public  career.1 
Such  an  occurrence  was  sure  to  incur  the  condemnation  of  the 
press  of  the  defeated  party.  Mr.  Greeley,  who  in  later  years 
sustained  relations  of  intimacy  with  Mr.  Chase,  declared  that 
his  election  was  "  deeply  tainted  by  corrupt  bargaining  and 
fraud."2  A  similar  coalition  in  Massachusetts  made  Charles 
Sumner  the  successor  of  Daniel  Webster  in  the  Senate — a 
coalition  denounced  by  the  W7hig  Advertiser  as  "criminal  not 
only  in  morals,  but  in  the  law  of  the  land." 

The  campaign  of  1848  was  a  tremendous  stride  toward  a  re 
turn  to  pure  republican  principles.  It  was  one  of  movement, 
of  education,  of  independent  action.  Those  States  that  had 
adhered  to  the  fortunes  of  the  old  parties — Vermont,  Wiscon 
sin,  Michigan,  Ohio — boldly  made  proclamation  of  resistance 
to  the  further  extension  of  the  slave  power.  In  New  York 
an  enthusiastic  canvass  was  conducted  by  the  Democratic 
leaders  of  the  Barnburner  faction — John  Van  Buren,  Preston 
King,  B.  F.  Butler,  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  Sanford  E.  Church, 
Dean  Richmond,  James  S.  Wadsworth,  John  A.  Dix  and 

1  Mr.  Sumner  predicted  a  great  career  for  the  new  Ohio  Senator.  See  letter, 
Jan.  S,  1850,  Memoirs.  Dr.  Von  Hoist,  in  his  admirable  and  usually  accurate 
work,  speaks  of  Chase  as  "an  earnest,  fiery  and  adroit  agitator  against  slavery" 
(vol.  iii.,  p.  427).  The  word  "fiery"  was  not  applicable  to  the  dignified,  grave, 
deliberate  and  massive  Chase.  -  New  York  Tribune,  Jan.  2,  1850. 

3  The  agreement  divided  the  offices,  including  those  of  Governor  and  Senator, 
between  the  allies. 


104  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

C.  C.  Cambreleng — not  only  in  behalf  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso, 
but  in  an  eloquent  assertion  of  the  duty  of  the  federal 
government  to  relieve  itself  of  all  responsibility  for  the  continu 
ance  of  slavery,  wherever  it  possessed  constitutional  authority. 
This  was  unwonted  language  for  Democratic  ears,  and  to 
many  must  have  presaged  the  end  of  things  political.  The 
total  vote  of  the  State  was:  for  Van  Buren,  120,510;  for  Cass, 
114,318;  for  Taylor,  218,603.  Of  the  total  vote  in  the  United 
States  nearly  one-ninth  of  the  electors  cast  Free  Soil  ballots. 

In  this  result  many  saw  the  speedy  disintegration  of  the  old 
parties.  Within  a  twelvemonth  after  the  Whig  victory,  an 
orator,  a  great  popular  favorite,  declared  it  to  be  the  purpose 
of  the  Free  Democracy  of  the  Empire  State  to  make  the 
Democratic  party  of  the  United  States  the  great  anti-slavery 
party.1  In  amusing  contrast  to  this  expectation  of  the  boast 
ful  protagonist  of  the  campaign  of  1848,  is  the  language  held 
some  months  previously  by  a  committee  of  distinguished 
Southerners,  who  were  recounting  the  "sacrifices"  which  the 
Northern  Democracy  had  made  for  the  South. 

We  believe  [so  runneth  their  address  to  their  constituents],  we 
yet  believe  that  the  only  true  and  reliable  friends  of  the  South  at  the 
North  are  to  be  found  in  the  Democratic  party,  and  that  the  pro 
tection  of  our  rights,  so  far  as  the  same  is  dependent  upon  the 
legislation  of  Congress,  is  only  to  be  promoted  by  uniting  in  still 
closer  bonds  with  those  who  have  given  us  these  evidences  of  the 
sincerity  of  their  friendship.2 

These  cords  of  friendship  shortly  bound  more  firmly  than 
ever  the  entire  Democracy  of  the  Union,  including  the  Barn 
burners —  the  Van  Burens,  Sanford  E.  Church,  Samuel  J. 
Tilden  and  others,  whose  "bold  voices  for  freedom  had  rung 

1  John  Van  Buren  at  Rome,  New  York,  in  August,  1849  :   "  We  expect  to  make 
the  Democratic  party  of  this  State  the  great  anti-slavery  party  of  this  State,  and 
through  it  to  make  the  Democratic  party  of  the  United  States  the  great  anti-slavery 
party  of  the  United  States.      Those  who  do  not  contemplate  this  result  would  do 
well  to  get  out  of  the  way." 

2  This  address,  signed  by  Howell  Cobb  and  others,  was  dated  at  Washington, 
Feb.  26,  1849.     See  Niles,  vol.  Ixxv.,  p.  231. 


Campaign  of  1848  105 

throughout  the  land  like  a  trumpet  call."  The  "Fox  of 
Kinderhook,"  when  posing  as  a  candidate,  assured  his  fol 
lowers  and  the  people  that  he  should  be  among  the  last  to 
abandon  the  principles  promulgated  at  Buffalo.  Once  sure  of 
his  revenge  upon  Cass,  he  reunited  with  the  old  party  and  re 
sumed  his  pro-slavery  record  which  had  been  interrupted  by 
the  brief  episode  of  1848. 

In  pleasing  contrast  to  this  faithlessness  is  the  patriotic  firm 
ness  of  the  new  President.  If  General  Taylor  was  without  ex 
perience  in  civil  affairs,  he  was  not  uninformed  in  the  history 
of  his  country  and  the  principles  underlying  the  most  im 
portant  public  measures.  He  was  wise,  sagacious,  upright, 
and  manly.  "The  more  I  see  of  him,"  wrote  Mr.  Seward, 
who  was  just  entering  on  that  great  career  in  national  affairs 
which  is  a  part  of  the  history  of  the  Republic, — "the  more  I 
see  of  him  the  more  I  admire  his  purity  and  excellence  of 
motive,  and  the  more  I  respect  his  discretion."  His  lack  of 
information  about  men  was  an  embarrassment  of  which  the 
professional  politician  was  sure  to  take  advantage,  of  which 
the  politician  did  take  advantage,  but  this  was  of  less  im 
portance  at  this  time  than  moral  courage  in  dealing  with  the 
complicated  questions  arising  from  the  annexation  of  Texas 
and  the  war  with  Mexico.  The  Thirtieth  Congress — a  Con 
gress  that  had  completed  much  useful  legislation  including  a 
new  executive  department  known  as  the  Department  of  the 
Interior — expired  with  the  Polk  administration  without  having 
provided  territorial  governments  for  California  and  New 
Mexico.  The  revenue  laws  of  the  United  States  were  ex 
tended  over  California,  but  further  legislation,  owing  to  dis 
agreement  between  the  two  Houses,  was  found  impracticable. 
An  amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Walker  to  the  general  ap 
propriation  bill  providing  for  the  extension  of  the  Constitution 
to  the  territories,  was  adopted  by  the  Senate  after  a  notable 
debate  in  which  antagonistic  theories  of  the  Constitution  were 
expounded  by  Mr.  Calhoun  and  Mr.  Webster.  The  latter 
declared  the  proposition  to  be  utterly  impossible.  The  South 

1  To  Mrs.  Seward,  March  2,  1849.     Seivard  at  Washington,  vol.  ii.,  p.  101. 


io6  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Carolinian  exulted  over  an  implied  concession  in  debate  that 
the  extension  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  the 
territories  would  be  a  shield  to  the  South  upon  the  question 
in  controversy.  The  revelation  of  the  real  object  of  the 
Walker  amendment  insured  its  rejection  by  the  House,  which 
adopted  a  substitute  proposed  by  Richard  W.  Thompson  of 
Indiana,  providing  that  the  Mexican  laws  should  be  continued 
in  force  until  July  4,  1850,  and  executed  by  such  persons  as 
the  President  should  appoint.  At  last  at  five  o'clock  Sunday 
morning  the  Senate  receded  and  the  heated  contest  was  at  an 
end. 

Thus  the  issues  of  the  slavery  question  remained  unchanged. 
They  confronted  the  new  administration  in  the  beginning; 
were  supposed  to  dominate  the  selection  of  Cabinet  ministers, 
and  even  of  appointments  to  the  greater  and  lesser  offices ; 
filled  all  minds  with  anxiety,  and  many  with  forebodings  of 
coming  evil.  A  conservative  Cabinet  is  what  the  Whigs  of 
both  sections  desired,  but  with  this  difference  :  the  Northerners 
expected  the  policy  on  this  question  to  be  against  the  exten 
sion  of  slavery  to  the  new  territories;  the  Southerners  insisted 
on  the  control  of  the  question  being  left  wholly  with  General 
Taylor.1  A  Cabinet  constructed  as  follows  would  have  met 
the  views  of  the  Georgia  Whigs2:  John  J.  Crittenden  of  Ken 
tucky,  Secretary  of  State;  John  M.  Clayton  of  Delaware, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury;  Wm.  M.  Meredith  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  Attorney-General;  Truman  Smith  of  Connecticut, 
Postmaster-General ;  Geo.  W.  Crawford  of  Georgia,  Secretary 
of  War;  R.  C.  Schenck  of  Ohio,  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 
Doubtless  this  would  have  been  acceptable  to  the  Seward 
Whigs.  The  Cabinet  as  actually  constituted  contained  three 
of  the  names  in  the  Georgia  list  and  might  have  contained 
four  if  Mr.  Crittenden  had  not  refused  to  permit  the  use  of 
his  name.  It  was  upon  his  recommendation  that  Mr.  Clayton 
was  made  Secretary  of  State;  and  Thomas  Ewing  of  Ohio, 
Secretary  of  the  Interior.  Mr.  Meredith  was  made  Secretary 

Correspondence  of  Alex.  H.  Stephens,  iyth  January,  1849.     MS. 
2  Ibid. 


Taylor's  Administration  107 

of  the  Treasury;  Mr.  Crawford,  Secretary  of  War;  Jacob  Col- 
lamer  of  Vermont,  Postmaster-General;  Reverdy  Johnson  of 
Maryland,  Attorney-General;  and  William  B.  Preston  of  Vir 
ginia,  Secretary  of  the  Navy.  Open  opposition  was  made  to 
Mr.  Collamer  by  Southern  Senators,  but  his  appointment  was 
finally  confirmed,  after  a  judicious  speech  by  Mr.  Seward,  in 
which  he  maintained  the  right  to  entertain  and  debate  extreme 
opinions,  "without  proscription  and  with  fidelity  to  the 
Union."  ' 

The  political  situation  of  the  South  at  this  period  of  our 
history  is  of  dramatic  interest.  Conscious  that  advantages 
which  they  had  expected  to  derive  from  the  war  with  Mexico 
could  not  be  realized,  the  leaders  of  the  Calhoun  school  sought 
to  bring  about  that  disunion  for  which  they  had  been  carefully 
preparing  the  public  mind.  Delay  strengthened  the  North 
and  weakened  the  South.  The  unorganized  territories,  from 
which  it  was  proposed  to  exclude  slave  property,  would,  when 
admitted  as  States,  add  to  the  North  a  sufficient  number  to 
give  it  three-fourths  of  the  whole,  when,  under  cover  of  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  it  would  emancipate  the  slaves 
in  the  Southern  States.  Thus  would  be  brought  upon  the 
people  of  that  section  "consequences  unparalleled  in  history." 
The  races  could  not  be  separated  and  could  not  live  together 
except  in  the  relation  then  existing.  Under  any  other, 
wretchedness  and  misery  and  desolation  would  overspread  the 
whole  South.2  This  was  the  opinion  generally  prevailing.  A 
bloody  conflict  of  races — a  repetition  of  San  Domingo — was  an 
ever-present  spectre  to  the  imagination  of  many  Southerners. 
On  applying  a  remedy  there  was  such  a  divergence  of  views  as 
to  neutralize  for  a  time  the  efforts  of  the  disunionists.  The 
convention  of  Southern  members  of  Congress  brought  out  this 
fact.  John  M.  Clayton,  who  was  to  be  the  head  of  President 
Taylor's  Cabinet,  participated,  and,  with  twenty-seven  other 

1  March  4th,   Mr.   Seward  records  that  Truman  Smith  was  proscribed  by  the 
South  and  left  out  of  the  Cabinet.     This  does  not  agree  with  Alex.  H.  Stephens's 
statement. 

2  Address  of  Southern  members  of  Congress  to  their  constituents,  January  18, 
1849. 


io8  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Whigs,  voted  against  any  action  whatever.  Alex.  H.  Stephens 
attended  the  meetings  "to  prevent  mischief"  and  expressed 
the  belief  that  he  had  succeeded.1  But  about  fifty  of  the  ex 
treme  members  signed  an  address,  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Calhoun, 
which  advised  the  Southern  people  to  become  a  unit  on  this 
question,  which  should  be  made  paramount  to  all  others.  One 
passage  in  this  address  is  of  special  interest  to  us,  inasmuch  as 
it  recognized  the  issue  as  one  of  property  rights  under  the 
Constitution.  It  is  from  the  charge  of  Judge  Baldwin  to  the 
jury  in  Johnson  vs.  Tompkins  and  others  (a  slave  case): 

Thus  you  see  that  the  foundations  of  the  government  are  laid 
and  rest  on  the  right  of  property  in  slaves.  The  whole  structiire 
must  fall  in  disturbing  the  corner-stone. ' '  It  took  twelve  years 
of  this  influence  to  induce  Mr.  Stephens  to  accept  slavery  as 
the  "corner-stone  "  of  a  government,  but  meanwhile  his  voice 
was  for  the  Union,  and  he  deprecated  the  violence  that  threat 
ened  its  disruption  in  1849.  "We  as  a  section  of  country  with 
our  rights,  interest  and  security,  I  sometimes  fear,  will  be 
ruined  if  such  men  as  those  who  got  up  the  Southern  conven 
tion  are  permitted  to  be  our  leaders."  2 

The  Legislatures  of  Virginia  and  Missouri  echoed  the  Cal 
houn  address  with  such  promptness  as  to  show  concerted 
action  among  the  extreme  men  throughout  the  South.3  Senator 
Benton  met  the  attempt  to  constrain  his  senatorial  course  with 
characteristic  boldness  by  appealing  directly  to  the  whole 
people  of  Missouri.  A  Senator  for  thirty  years,  he  could  not 
degrade  the  Senate  by  engaging  in  slavery  and  disunion  dis 
cussions.  There  was  nothing  real  or  practical  in  the  whole 
slavery  question;  nothing  for  the  people  of  the  United  States 
to  quarrel  about.  There  was  no  slavery  in  any  territory,  and 
it  could  not  get  there  by  law  except  by  act  of  Congress,  which 
would  never  be  passed.4  He  had  no  patience  with  the  Calhoun 
dogma  of  the  Constitution  carrying  slavery  to  the  territories. 

1  Correspondence,  1 7th  January,  1849.     MS. 

2  Correspondence  of  Alex.  H.  Stephens.     MS. 

3  The  resolutions  adopted  contemplated  resistance  at  all  hazards  in  case  the 
Wilmot  Proviso  should  become  a  law. 

4  Speech  at  Jefferson  City,  May  26,  1849. 


Projects  for  Emancipation  109 

The  canvass  made  by  Senator  Benton  gave  an  impetus  to 
the  movement  that  had  already  been  inaugurated  in  Missouri 
favoring  emancipation.  The  leaders  of  both  parties  represent 
ing  nearly  every  county  in  the  State,  in  a  private  conference 
in  1828,  agreed  to  put  in  operation  a  plan  to  secure  the  enact 
ment  of  a  law  that  would  provide  for  gradual  emancipation, 
and  the  attempt  would  have  been  made  but  for  an  indiscretion 
of  a  leading  Abolitionist  in  New  York.1  This  plan  was  now 
revived,  and,  on  account  of  the  support  of  the  German  popu 
lation  and  a  large  and  influential  part  of  the  press,  some  legis 
lative  action  was  confidently  expected.  But  whether  promoted 
by  law  or  not,  the  St.  Louis  Daily  Organ  expressed  the  opin 
ion  that  slavery  would  cease  to  exist  in  that  State  within 
twenty-five  years,  in  the  natural  progress  of  events. 

In  Kentucky  and  western  Virginia  also  many  conservative 
people,  realizing  the  weakness  and  constant  menace  to  social 
order  of  an  institution  dependent  upon  exceptional  laws, 
looked  to  gradual  emancipation  as  the  cure  for  the  evils  which 
were  overshadowing  the  whole  land.  The  Virginians  residing 
west  of  the  Blue  Ridge  had  not  ceased  to  agitate  for  that  re 
form  in  representation  which  they  asked  for  in  vain  in  the  con 
vention  of  1829-30,  through  which  they  hoped  to  secure  relief 
from  slavery  for  themselves.  Anticipating  a  new  apportion 
ment  under  the  census  of  1850,  they  strengthened  their  argu 
ments  with  new  facts.  Besides  a  just  share  of  representation 
they  asked  for  the  passage  of  a  law  to  remove  slavery  from 
their  side  of  the  Blue  Ridge.  Arguments  founded  upon  the 
radically  different  social  conditions  of  eastern  and  western 
Virginia,  and  the  economical  lesson  deducible  from  the  pros 
perity  of  the  Northern  States  as  compared  with  the  slow 
growth  of  the  Southern,  were  presented. 

In  some  parts  of  eastern  Virginia  the  slaves  were  two  or 
three  times  as  numerous  as  the  whites ;  in  the  western  part  of 
the  State,  they  constituted  only  one-eighth  of  the  population. 
The  aspiration  here  was  to  get  rid  of  this  incumbrance  and 

1  Commonwealth  of  Missouri,  p.  223.    Also  quoted  by  Lucian  Carr  in  Missouri  : 
A  Bone  of  Contention,  p.  174. 


no  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

to  build  on  the  basis  of  a  free  population,  which  would  invite 
manufacturing  industries  to  consume  the  coal  and  iron  buried 
in  the  mountains,  and  improve  the  market  for  agricultural 
products  grown  in  her  valleys.  What  lesson  did  western 
Pennsylvania  teach?  With  an  area  of  5500  square  miles  less 
than  western  Virginia,  the  growth  in  population  in  the  decade 
ending  in  1840  was  37^  per  cent,  as  against  14^;  the  farming 
industry  yielded  an  annual  value  of  $212  to  the  hand  as  against 
$158;  the  iron  industry  109  per  cent,  on  capital,  and  $720 
worth  to  the  hand,  as  against  70  per  cent.,  and  $390  worth  to 
the  hand ;  the  total  of  iron,  leather  and  woollen  manufactures 
was  six  millions  of  dollars  as  against  seven  hundred  and 
seventy  thousand ;  the  number  of  scholars  that  attended 
school  during  some  part  of  the  year,  was  in  Pennsylvania  one 
to  every  nine  persons,  in  Virginia  one  to  every  twenty-one; 
in  Pennsylvania  the  illiterate  were  as  one  to  forty-nine,  in 
Virginia  one  to  five  and  a  half.  Clearly  slave  labor  was  un 
profitable  as  compared  with  free  labor;  and  clearly,  also,  those 
who  constituted  a  desirable  population  looked  upon  all  Vir 
ginia  as  an  infected  country.  It  was  certain  that  slavery  drove 
free  laborers  out  of  the  country  and  filled  their  places  with 
slaves.  In  the  ten  years  ending  in  1840  Virginia  lost  by  emi 
gration  375,000  of  her  people,  most  of  whom  settled  in  the  free 
States  of  the  West;  these  were  industrious  and  enterprising 
white  men,  "who  found  by  sad  experience  that  a  country  of 
slaves  was  not  the  country  for  them."  1 

The  citizens  of  western  Virginia,  therefore,  favored  a  law 
prohibiting  the  further  importation  of  slaves;  favored  gradual 
emancipation  ;  favored  the  education  of  the  heirs  of  emanci 
pation,  and  their  subsequent  colonization.  Would  eastern 
Virginia  consent? 

A  comparison  between  Kentucky  and  Ohio  was  even  more 
striking.  In  1800  the  former  had  221,000  inhabitants,  the  lat 
ter  45,000.  In  forty  years  the  population  of  Kentucky  had 
risen  to  780,000;  that  of  Ohio  to  1,519,000.  The  reason  of 
the  difference  was  obvious  to  the  dullest  mind.  Would  the 

1  Address  to  the  People  of  West  Virginia,  p.  14. 


Projects  for  Emancipation  m 

slaveholding  class  choose  wisely  and  change  the  current  of  his 
tory?  The  call  for  a  convention  to  amend  the  constitution  of 
the  State  afforded  an  opportunity  to  enter  upon  gradual 
emancipation.  Mr.  Letcher  and  other  influential  Whigs  con 
fidently  expected  the  amendment  to  carry.1  Mr.  Clay  took 
the  lead  in  this  movement.  In  a  letter  written  in  February, 
1849,  at  New  Orleans  where  he  was  sojourning,  addressed  to 
Richard  Pindell  of  Lexington,  he  entered  upon  an  extended 
discussion  of  the  subject  of  emancipation. a 

Upon  the  return  of  Mr.  Clay  to  Ashland  a  public  meeting 
was  held  at  Lexington  which  was  addressed  by  him  and  Dr. 
Breckinridge.  Resolutions  were  adopted,  declaring  hereditary 
slavery  to  be  contrary  to  the  rights  of  man,  opposed  to  the 
fundamental  principles  of  free  government,  inconsistent  with 
a  state  of  sound  morality  and  hostile  to  the  prosperity  of  the 
commonwealth,  and  favoring  the  amendment  of  the  State  con 
stitution  to  secure  a  practicable  system  of  emancipation.  A 
thorough  canvass  of  the  State  followed,  and  the  cause  had  the 
support  of  several  influential  papers,  including  the  Louisville 
Courier. 

The  result  was  a  surprise,  a  profound  disappointment,  to 
Mr.  Clay  and  other  friends  of  emancipation.  While  the  legis 
lative  election  gave  the  Whigs  a  majority  of  thirty  on  joint 
ballot,  the  Democrats  captured  the  convention  in  which  they 
had  a  majority  of  six.3  "Slavery  was  afraid  to  trust  itself  in 
the  hands  of  a  Whig  majority,"  was  the  comment  of  Horace 

1  Speech  at  Indianapolis,  reported  in  the  Journal  of  that  city. 

2  See  pamphlet  printed  at  the  time  for  circulation  in  the  State  ;   also  Works, 
vol.  iii.,  p.  349. 

3  Democrats    52,   Whigs  47,   with  Casey  County   a  tie.      The  activity  of  the 
emancipationists  led  to  the  call  of  a  counter  convention  of  the  "  Friends  of  Con 
stitutional  Reform,"  which  was  presided  over  by  John  L.  Helm.     James  Guthrie, 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Resolutions,  reported  a  series,  two  of  which  made 
the  platform  of  the  campaign  on  the  slavery  issue  as  follows  : 

"  Resolved,  That  we  do  not  desire  or  contemplate  any  change  in  the  relative 
condition  of  master  and  slave  in  the  new  constitution,  and  intend  a  firm  and  de 
cided  resistance  to  any  such  change. 

* '  Resolved,  That  we  have  no  objection  to  a  proper  provision  for  colonizing  the 
present  free  blacks,  and  those  who  shall  hereafter  be  set  free,  but  protest  against 


ii2  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Greeley.1  The  reactionists  had  played  the  game  of  politics 
with  great  shrewdness,  and  they  had  had  the  sympathy  of  the 
radicals  in  other  States,  who  were  enlisted  in  the  cause  of 
making  slavery  national.  The  example  of  Kentucky  adopting 
emancipation  would  have  meant  the  speedy  downfall  of  the 
institution.  They  made  the  most  of  their  triumph,  and  en 
grafted  on  the  constitution  a  clause  declaring,  in  the  language 
of  the  statesmen  of  the  cotton  States,  that  "the  right  of 
property  is  before  and  higher  than  any  constitutional  sanction, 
and  the  right  of  the  owners  of  a  slave  to  such  slave  and  its  in 
crease  is  the  same  and  as  inviolable  as  the  right  of  the  owner 
of  any  property  whatever."  Henceforth  Kentucky  heeds  less 
and  less  the  wisdom  and  examples  of  her  great  men. 

The  rapidity  with  which  California  was  peopled  after  the 
discovery  of  gold  in  1848  rendered  necessary  the  quick  estab 
lishment  of  a  stable  government.  The  Thirtieth  Congress 
having  expired  without  relieving  the  military  government, 
President  Taylor  met  the  emergency  by  advising  the  inhabi 
tants  to  organize  under  a  constitution  formed  by  themselves 
and  to  apply  to  Congress  for  admission  as  a  State.  The 
orderly  and  intelligent  manner  in  which  this  duty  was  per 
formed  was  a  striking  example  of  the  capacity  of  the  Ameri 
cans  for  self-government.  A  constitution  was  adopted  in 
which  slavery  was  forever  prohibited.  The  first  Legislature 
met  at  San  Jose  on  the  I5th  of  December,  1849,  and  five  days 
later  Peter  H.  Burnett  was  installed  as  Governor,  relieving 
Colonel  Riley,  the  Military  Governor.2  Lieut.-Col.  John  C. 
Fremont,  whose  romantic  and  hardy  explorations  and  par 
ticipation  in  the  seizure  of  California  had  made  him  a  popular 
hero,  and  Dr.  William  M.  Gwin,  formerly  of  Mississippi,  were 
elected  to  represent  the  new  State  in  the  United  States  Senate. 

abolition  or  emancipation  without  the  consent  of  the  owner,  unless  upon  full  com 
pensation  and  colonization." 

Those  favoring  the  above  views  were  expected  to  sustain  them,  "without 
regard  to  former  party  distinctions." 

Compare  Louisville  Journal,  Feb.  6,  1849. 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  12,  1849. 

5  The  Century  Magazine,  vol.  xl.,  p.  788. 


Admission  of  California  113 

When  the  Thirty-first  Congress  convened  on  the  3d  day  of 
December,  the  entire  country  was  in  a  state  of  excitement 
over  the  all-absorbing  question  of  slavery.  The  Free  Soilers 
held  the  balance  of  power  in  the  House,  and  for  three  weeks 
prevented  an  organization  by  refusing  to  vote  for  either 
Robert  C.  Winthrop,  the  Whig  candidate,  or  Howell  Cobb, 
the  Democratic.  The  contest  was  finally  settled  on  the  sixty- 
third  ballot  under  an  agreement  that  a  plurality  should  elect. 
Much  indignation  was  expressed  in  Whig  circles  at  the  course 
of  the  Free  Soil  members  in  refusing  to  vote  for  Mr.  W7inthrop 
who  had  supported  the  Wilmot  Proviso.1  If  Mr.  Giddings 
and  his  associates  demanded  security  for  the  future,  so  did 
Mr.  Toombs  of  Georgia,  who  separated  also  from  the  Whig 
party  because  he  could  not  get  pledges.  Anticipating  the 
future,  and  objecting  to  a  control  shared  by  the  Free  Soil 
faction  of  the  Whig  party,  Toombs  and  Stephens  undoubtedly 
favored  the  choice  of  Cobb  for  Speaker,  and  promoted  the 
complications  and  the  shameful  discord  that  prevented  an 
early  organization.2  But  they  were  not  prepared  yet  to  ac 
cept  the  logical  principles  of  the  Southern  extremists,  and  we 
shall  find  them  rendering  valuable  service  for  the  Union,  for  a 
brief  time. 

The  message  of  the  President,  patriotic  and  firm  in  tone, 
gave  no  comfort  to  the  disunionists,  who  received  it  with  exe 
crations.  He  recommended  that  California  be  promptly  ad 
mitted  to  the  Union,  and  that  New  Mexico  be  left  under  her 
existing  military  government  until  she  could  form  a  constitu- 

1  Horace  Mann,  successor  to  John  Quincy  Adams,  and   a   conscientious  anti- 
slavery  man,  voted  for  Mr.  Wrinthrop  on  the  ground  that  it  was  the  best  that 
could  be  done — that  it  was  practical  politics. 

2  "  Give  me  securities  that  the  power  of  organization  which  you  seek  will  not  be 
used  to  the  injury  of  my  constituents,  then  you  can  have  my  co-operation,  but  not 
till  then." — Stoval's  The  Life  of  Robert  J^oombs,  p.  70. 

"  I  soon  saw  that  the  expectation  was  that  Winthrop  was  to  be  elected  by  a 
coalition  of  Southern  Whigs  with  the  Free  Soilers,  and  the  Whig  party  was  to 
be  the  anti-slavery  party.  Against  that  I  kicked — I  detested  the  idea.  .  .  . 
We  made  up  a  point  upon  the  Whigs  ;  we  got  up  a  great  row  ;  we  shook  the 
country  from  one  end  to  the  other." — Letter  of  Alex.  H.  Stephens,  April  15, 
1850,  in  Biographical  Sketch  of  Linton  Stephens,  p.  100. 


ii4  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

tion  and  apply  for  admission  as  a  State.  It  was  evident  that 
the  President  had  matured  a  policy,1  and  that  the  violence 
displayed  by  the  extremists  and  the  boldness  with  which  they 
uttered  disunion  sentiments  after  the  terms  of  the  California 
constitution  were  known  only  strengthened  his  determination 
to  adhere  to  it  to  the  end.  If  the  hotheads  seceded,  he  would 
defend  the  Union. 

President  Taylor  visited  the  Middle  States  in  August  and 
September,  and  had  a  good  opportunity  to  learn  something  of 
public  sentiment  in  the  North.  He  was  everywhere  received 
with  enthusiasm,  and  made  brief  and  appropriate  addresses. 
At  Albany  he  was  entertained  at  dinner  by  Governor  Fish. 
At  Mercer,  Pennsylvania,  a  delegation  from  Mr.  Giddings's 
district  was  received  with  great  cordiality.  His  inquiries 
showed  that  he  was  familiar  with  the  agricultural  resources  of 
the  Western  Reserve.  He  took  occasion  to  correct  a  mis- 
statement  of  Mr.  Giddings's  that  he  had  favored  the  Walker 
amendment  and  had  sought  to  induce  members  of  Congress  to 
support  it.  He  had  not  done  so.  He  was  anxious  that  Cali 
fornia  should  have  some  government  besides  the  bowie  knife 
and  pistol,  but  he  had  never  expressed  a  preference  for  the 
amendment  of  Mr.  Walker  over  that  of  any  other.  He  re 
marked  in  this  connection  that  the  people  of  the  North  need 
have  no  apprehension  of  the  further  extension  of  slavery — that 

1  This  policy  originated  in  the  fertile  brain  of  John  M.  Clayton.  On  the  I3th 
December,  1848,  he  wrote  a  friend  as  follows  :  "I  had  an  excellent  plan  to  steer 
clear  of  that  [slavery  question]  last  session,  but  was  baffled  by  our  Northern  ultra 
Free  Soil  men  and  our  friends  Badger,  Bell  and  Underwood."  This  plan  was 
known  as  the  Clayton  Compromise.  It  proposed  to  submit  all  questions  as  to 
the  rightful  existence  or  extent  of  slavery  in  the  territories  to  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States — a  mischievous  measure.  Failing  in  this, 
and  now  about  to  become  the  premier  of  the  new  administration,  Clayton  devised 
a  new  plan  which  he  explains  in  the  letter  from  which  I  am  quoting  :  "  It  is 
briefly  this  :  The  people  of  New  Mexico,  who  number  probably  50,000,  and  the 
people  of  California,  who  are  probably  100,000,  will,  on  a  hint,  gladly  organize 
and  form  State  constitutions  next  summer  and  present  themselves  to  Congress  at 
the  next  session,  and  some  time  about  the  summer  of  1850  Congress  will  admit 
them  into  the  Union.  In  the  meantime  no  Wilmot  Proviso  will  or  can  pass  the 
Senate.  Rely  on  it,  we  will  saw  around  that  knot."  MS. 


Admission  of  California  115 

the  necessity  for  a  third  party  organization  on  this  score  would 
soon  be  obviated.  This  frank  expression  was  received  with 
satisfaction  everywhere  except  in  the  cotton  section,  where  the 
public  mind  was  in  such  a  state  of  frenzy  as  solemnly  to  de 
clare  a  "  fixed  purpose  never  to  submit  to  any  act  of  the 
government"  that  excluded  the  South  from  a  fair  and  just 
enjoyment  of  the  territory  acquired  from  Mexico,  which  was 
the  property  of  the  States  of  the  Union ;  and  to  declare  that 
they  would  never  submit  to  any  act  of  the  government  abol 
ishing  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia;  and  to  assert  that 
they  would  demand  that  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  in 
regard  to  their  property  should  be  faithfully  observed.1 

It  was  clearly  shown  by  Dr.  Francis  Lieber  in  friendly  let 
ters  to  Mr.  Calhoun  during  this  controversy  that  the  Consti 
tution  did  not  say  that  the  institution  of  non-slavery  of  the 
North  was  of  a  less  positive  character  than  the  slavery  of  the 
South.  The  South  was  not  disfranchised  of  a  privilege  pos 
sessed  by  all  others,  for  no  one  was  permitted  to  carry  slaves 
along  with  him.  "Still  it  might  be  said  that  slaves  were 
movable  property,  and  Southerners  were  not  allowed  to  take 
it  with  them.  The  answer  was  obvious :  Because,  although 
the  law  declared  the  slave  to  be  the  property  of  his  master, 
slavery  was  not  purely  an  institution  of  property.  It  was  also 

1  Resolutions  of  the  State  of  Alabama.     See  Ex.  Doc.  iSjo. 

The  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Georgia  went  a  step  further.  A  law  was  enacted 
authorizing  the  Governor  to  call  a  convention  whenever  the  Wilmot  Proviso 
should  be  passed,  or  slavery  in  the  District  abolished,  or  California  admitted  into 
the  Union  with  a  constitution  prohibiting  slavery — whenever  the  whole  or  any  one 
of  these  things  should  be  done.  When  convened,  the  members  of  this  convention 
were  to  take  no  oath  supporting  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  but  instead 
the  following  : 

"  I,  ,  do  solemnly  swear,  in  the  presence  of  Almighty  God,  that  I  will, 

to  the  best  of  my  ability,  demean  myself  as  a  delegate  of  the  people  of  this  State, 
and  act  for  the  honor  and  interest  of  the  people  of  Georgia." — Leg.  Proc.  1850. 

Mr.  Toombs  in  a  letter  to  the  Governor  of  Georgia  criticised  this  action.  He 
said  :  "  Congress  has  the  express  power  to  admit  new  States.  The  admission  of 
California  under  that  power  is  purely  and  solely  a  question  of  Congressional  dis 
cretion,  and  would  present  neither  a  just  nor  sufficient  cause  for  State  interposi 
tion  or  revolutionary  resistance."  He  declared  his  purpose  to  vote  for  the 
admission  of  California  with  her  free  State  constitution. 


n6  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

a   personal    one."       It   was   this   fact   which    caused  all  the 
difficulty.1 

The  scene  of  interest  now  shifts  to  the  Senate.  In  that 
body  were  associated  together  again  for  a  brief  season  and  for 
the  last  time,  three  statesmen,  whose  intellectual  endowments 
made  them  easily  the  commanding  figures  of  their  times — Clay, 
Calhoun  and  Webster.  The  great  Carolinian,  though  much 
enfeebled  in  body,  was  alert  in  pressing  his  views  and  in  nerv 
ing  the  Southern  people  to  bold  action  in  defence  of  their  so- 
called  "rights."  He  appeared  much  depressed  in  these  days. 
It  is  related  by  Senator  Gwin  that  in  a  conference  with  Mr. 
Calhoun  at  this  period,  the  latter  declared  that  the  admission 
of  California  with  its  free  State  constitution,  "would  destroy 
the  equilibrium  in  the  Senate,  which  was  the  only  safeguard 
of  the  South  against  the  numerical  superiority  of  the  North," 
and  he  prophesied  civil  war.3  Mr.  Toombs  frankly  confessed 
that  the  Mexican  territory  could  never  be  a  slave  country,  and 
that  the  South  had  only  the  point  of  honor  to  save.  The  ex 
tremists  would  save  it  by  setting  up  a  new  republic;  Toombs 
by  getting  the  North  to  yield  something  to  Texas.3 

Mr.  Clay,  now  in  his  seventy-third  year,  was  upon  the  scene, 
which  had  witnessed  so  many  of  his  triumphs,  again  the  one 
whose  name  was  first  upon  the  lips  of  the  stranger;  again  to 
persuade,  to  direct,  to  command.  Political  actors,  those  am 
bitious  for  power  and  place,  feared  him,  and  secretly  sought 
to  prevent  his  return  to  the  capital.  ' '  Is  there  not  some  way, 
wrote  one  who  had  been  proud  to  follow  this  Saul*  in  other 
days, — "Is  there  not  some  way  to  prevent  old  Clay  from  re 
turning  to  the  Senate?  "  It  was  "gallant  Harry  Clay,"  "The 
Great  Commoner  of  the  American  Republic,"  once;  it  is  "old 
Clay  "  now!  Another  wrote:  "It  will  not  do  for  Mr.  Clay  to 
come  back  here  if  it  can  be  prevented.  I  talk  plainly,  for  the 
emergency  requires  it." 

1  Life  and  Letters  of  Francis  Lieber,  p.  233. 

8  Bancroft's  History  of  California,  vol.  vi.,  p.  342. 

3  Letter,  Jan.  22,  1849.     MS. 

4  Correspondence  of  John  M.Clayton.     MS. 


The  Clay  Compromise  117 

But  Mr.  Clay  was  in  the  Senate,  not  from  choice,  not 
through  self-seeking:  he  was  there  in  obedience  to  the  ex 
pressed  wish  of  the  people  and  the  Legislature  of  Ken 
tucky,  to  the  gratification  of  the  majority  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States.  He  had  been  cheered  by  the  popu 
lar  demonstrations  attending  his  journey  to  the  northward 
during  the  previous  September.  The  old-time  affection  and 
enthusiasm  surrounded  him  everywhere — at  Baltimore,  Phila 
delphia,  the  towns  of  New  Jersey,  at  New  York  and  Albany. 
He  was  a  guest  of  ex-President  Van  Buren  at  Kinderhook, 
and  rode  in  his  carriage  to  visit  the  manufacturing  village  of 
Valatie,  where  a  most  hearty  reception  awaited  him.1  At 
Baltimore  he  spoke  at  some  length  on  the  political  crisis, 
dwelling  upon  the  importance  of  the  Union  and  picturing  the 
calamities  and  horrors  of  civil  war.  He  expressed  the  opinion 
that  under  no  possible  circumstances  was  slavery  likely  to  be 
introduced  into  California  or  New  Mexico — the  character  of 
the  climate  and  industrial  pursuits  of  the  inhabitants  being 
unfavorable  to  the  system.  His  subsequent  action  in  the 
Senate  was  an  exemplification  of  these  views,  having  a  single 
object  in  view,  the  preservation  of  the  Union  through  the 
pacification  of  the  country. 

Mr.  Clay  believed  that  the  President's  plan  fell  short  of 
what  the  crisis — for  a  crisis  it  was  whose  gravity  was  not  gen 
erally  appreciated — demanded,  and  he  undertook  to  attempt 
"an  amicable  arrangement  of  all  questions  in  controversy  be 
tween  the  free  and  slave  States  growing  out  of  the  subject  of 
slavery."  In  memoranda  left  by  Senator  Gwin  it  is  related 
that  Mr.  Clay  was  at  first  in  favor  of  the  admission  of  Cali 
fornia  as  a  separate  measure,  but  he  was  induced  to  make  it  a 
part  of  a  general  system  of  legislation  on  the  slavery  question 
by  information  that  a  compact  had  been  made  by  a  consider 
able  body  of  Southern  members  of  the  House  "never  to  per 
mit  a  bill  to  pass  the  House  admitting  California  until  the 
right  of  the  South  to  carry  their  property  to  the  territories 
was  first  guaranteed  by  law."  "Mr.  Clay  said  that  for  the 

1  Correspondence  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  7,  1849. 


nS  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

first  time  in  his  life,  he  thought  the  Union  in  immediate  peril, 
and  that  the  short  remnant  of  days  left  to  him  would  see  it 
destroyed."  He  therefore  brought  forward  his  series  of 
resolutions  on  the  2Qth  of  January,  1850,  embracing  the  ad 
mission  of  California;  governments  for  New  Mexico  and  Utah 
without  permitting  or  prohibiting  the  introduction  of  slavery ; 
adjustment  of  the  disputed  boundary  of  Texas  and  the  allow 
ance  of  ten  millions  of  dollars  to  that  State  for  the  payment 
of  her  debt;  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of 
Columbia;  and  a  more  effective  provision  for  the  rendition  of 
fugitive  slaves.  The  first  clause  of  the  second  resolution  re 
peated  his  Baltimore  remarks,  "That  as  slavery  does  not  exist 
by  law,  and  is  not  likely  to  be  introduced  into  any  of  the  ter 
ritory  acquired  by  the  United  States  from  the  republic  of 
Mexico,  it  is  inexpedient  for  Congress  to  provide  by  law  either 
for  its  introduction  into,  or  exclusion  from  any  part  of  the  said 
territory."  This  was  to  reconcile  the  anti-slavery  people  to 
the  omission  of  a  direct  endorsement  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso, 
and  to  open  a  way  for  the  disunionists  to  modify  their  posi 
tion.  Mr.  Mason  of  Virginia,  an  extremist,  interpreted  this 
declaration  to  mean,  in  Mr.  Clay's  view,  that  as  the  existing 
law  abolished  slavery,  it  could  not  be  introduced  there,  "even 
if  a  law  was  passed  repealing  the  statute  already  existing." 

Jefferson  Davis,  of  Mississippi,  regarded  this  as  a  measure 
in  which  the  South  was  to  receive  nothing.  He  would  never 
consent  to  take  less  than  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  ex 
tended  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  with  the  specific  recognition  of 
the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  the  territory  below  that  line;  and 
to  take  them  there  while  in  a  territorial  condition.  Mr. 
Clay's  reply  to  this  was  worthy  of  him.  He  said : 

I  am  extremely  sorry  to  hear  the  Senator  from  Mississippi  say 
that  he  requires  first  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
line  to  the  Pacific;  and  also  that  he  is  not  satisfied  with  that,  but 
requires,  if  I  understand  him  correctly,  a  positive  provision  for  the 
admission  of  slavery  south  of  that  line.  And  now,  Sir,  coming  from 

1  The  Century  Magazine,  vol.  xl.,  p.  790. 


The  Clay  Compromise  119 

a  slave  State  as  I  do,  I  owe  it  to  myself,  I  owe  it  to  truth,  I  owe  it 
to  the  subject,  to  state  that  no  earthly  power  could  induce  me  to 
vote  for  a  specific  measure  for  the  introduction  of  slavery  either 
south  or  north  of  that  line.  Coming  as  I  do  from  a  slave  State,  it  is 
my  solemn,  deliberate  and  well-matured  determination  that  no 
power — no  earthly  power — shall  compel  me  to  vote  for  the  positive 
introduction  of  slavery  either  north  or  south  of  that  line.  Sir,  while 
you  reproach,  and  justly  too,  our  British  ancestors  for  the  introduc 
tion  of  that  institution  upon  the  continent  of  America,  I  am,  for 
one,  unwilling  that  the  posterity  of  the  present  inhabitants  of  Cali 
fornia  and  of  New  Mexico  shall  reproach  us  for  doing  just  what  we 
reproach  Great  Britain  for  doing  to  us.1 

Other  Senators  contended  that  Congress  had  no  right  to 
interpose.  "We  have  only  asked,"  said  Mr.  Butler,  of  South 
Carolina,  "and  it  is  the  only  compromise  to  which  we  will 
submit,  that  Congress  shall  withhold  the  hand  of  violence 
from  the  territories."  Mr.  Calhoun  gathered  sufficient 
strength  to  dictate  an  elaborate  argument  against  the  resolu 
tions,  which  was  read  to  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Mason  on  the  4th 
of  March.  On  the  3 1st  of  the  month  he  died. 

The  debate  continued  for  weeks  with  all  parties  as  far  apart 
as  in  the  beginning.  There  was  great  unanimity  in  the  North 
as  expressed  in  the  resolutions  adopted  by  Whig  and  Demo 
cratic  legislative  bodies;  and,  what  was  more  commendable, 
there  was  moderation  in  the  expression  of  opinions.  While 
the  men  of  the  North  were  willing  to  accord  to  the  slave- 
holding  States  all  the  rights  secured  to  them  by  the  Constitu 
tion,  they  insisted  that  the  rights  of  the  free  States  were 
entitled  to  equal  regard;  and  they  could  not  consent  to  the 
extension  of  the  exceptional  institution  to  free  territory.8 

The  Union  would  never  be  dissolved  so  long  as  "Old  Rough 
and  Ready  "  was  President,  exclaimed  a  North  Carolina  mem 
ber  in  the  heat  of  debate;  and  added  with  patriotic  fervor, 

1  For  convenient  reference  to  the  report  of  the  discussion  in  the  Senate  at  this 
time,  see  Horace  Greeley's  pamphlet,  History  of  the  Struggle  for  Slavery  Exten 
sion  or  Restriction,  1856. 

2  See  message  of  Gov.  Seabury  Ford,  of  Ohio  ;  resolutions  of  Legislatures  of 
Wisconsin,  Michigan  and  the  New  England  States. 


120  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

that  if  the  hour  of  trial  came  North  Carolina  would  say,  as  she 
said  in  '75,  "The  cause  of  Boston  is  the  cause  of  all  of  us."  ' 

The  Legislature  of  Tennessee,  following  the  example  of 
Governor  Neil  S.  Brown,  declared  before  adjourning  that  the 
patriotic  people  of  that  State  would  stand  by  and  defend  the 
Union  "at  all  hazards,  and  to  the  last  extremity."  And  such 
sentiments  found  expression  elsewhere  in  the  South.  In  the 
President's  own  State  the  question  received  a  wise  and  dis 
passionate  discussion  in  an  influential  journal,  reflecting, 
doubtless,  his  opinions.  It  deprecated  the  excitement  in  the 
South  and  the  rule  of  passion  and  prejudice  instead  of  reason. 
Believing  slavery  to  be  a  political  evil,  was  it  surprising  that 
the  people  of  the  North  should  desire  to  go  all  the  lengths 
warranted  by  the  Constitution  in  preventing  the  extension  of 
it?  And  so  long  as  they  confined  themselves  in  these  prohibi 
tory  efforts  within  the  limits  of  the  Constitution,  and  so  long 
as  they  did  not  infringe  on  the  established  rights  of  the  South, 
why  should  Southern  people  be  excited  to  intemperate  re 
marks  in  opposition  to  them?  There  could  be  no  invasion? 
no  infringement  of  their  just  rights  without  the  destruction  of 
the  Constitution,  or  the  remodelling  of  it,  and  when  that 
period  arrived  it  would  be  time  to  talk  of  a  "separate  Southern 
republic."  The  Congress  was  clothed  with  full  power  to 
legislate  for  the  territories,  and  to  prohibit  the  slave  trade  in 
the  District,  and  belief  in  the  expediency  of  such  action  was 
entitled  to  respect.  The  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  terri 
tories  then  free  would  cause  no  real  or  direct  injury  to  the 
Southern  people,  "because,  without  the  prohibition  they  could 
not  and  would  not  take  their  slaves  there." 

This  moderation,  this  appeal  to  reason,  did  not  seem  to  re 
strain  the  extremists,  who  were  planning  desperate  measures. 
What  deeply  impressed  Mr.  Seward  on  the  occasion  of  his 
visit  to  Charleston  in  1849,  was 

the  depth  and  hold  which  the  doctrine  of  disunion  seemed  to  Have 
gained  upon  leading  minds  in  South  Carolina.  At  Washington, 

1  Correspondence.     MS. 

9  The  Concordia  (La.)  Intelligencer.     See  also  Niles,  vol.  Ixxv.,  p.  172. 


Disunion  Sentiments  121 

disunion  sentiments  were  usually  heard  only  in  the  heat  of  debate. 
But  in  Charleston  they  were  discussed  with  philosophical  calmness 
at  the  dinner  table,  and  the  consequences  to  flow  from  them  re 
garded  with  hope  rather  than  dread.1 

Alex.  H.  Stephens  read  in  the  signs  of  the  times  only  por 
tents  of  evil. 

Of  one  thing  [said  he  in  a  confidential  letter2]  I  am  certain: 
civil  war  in  this  country  better  be  prevented  if  it  can  be.  The 
general  government  I  know  is  strong,  but  the  different  sections  of 
this  Republic  cannot  long  be  kept  together  by  force.  This  is  what 
I  tell  our  friends  (of  the  North),  but  of  the  signs  of  the  times  not 
the  least  ominous  is  that  they  do  not  believe  it.  The  excitement  in 
the  South  upon  the  slave  question  is  much  greater  (I  know  it)  than 
those  who  are  at  the  head  of  affairs  here  have  any  idea  of. 

The  extreme  Southern  gentlemen  [said  Governor  Morehead] 
would  secretly  deplore  the  settlement  of  this  question.  There  are 
more  who  are  for  disunion  per  se  than  you  have  any  idea  of.  The 
magnificence  of  a  Southern  confederacy,  wi,th  power,  honors  and 
office  to  be  obtained  without  Northern  competition  with  overwhelm 
ing  numbers  on  its  side,  is  a  dazzling  allurement  to  consummate  the 
scheme.  They  count  on  obtaining  Cuba,  forming  a  close  commer 
cial  alliance  with  Great  Britain,  getting  Jamaica  from  her,  and 
finally  adding  a  large  part  of  Mexico.  The  mad  and  traitorous 
scheme  occasionally  leaks  out,  and  the  public  mind  is  to  be  prepared 
to  embrace  it;  and,  strange  to  say,  our  Northern  friends  are  daily 
playing  into  their  hands  by  attempting  to  use  the  moral  force  of 
the  general  government  to  weaken  the  tenure  of  the  property  of  the 
South  to  the  amount  of  not  less  than  fifteen  hundred  millions  of 
dollars.3 

In  a  private  letter,  written  Dec.  20,  1849,  Francis  P.  Blair, 
an  intimate  friend  of  General  Jackson,  and  a  man  of  great  po 
litical  sagacity,  expressed  the  belief  that  the  Southern  leaders 
were  consciously  laboring  for  the  disruption  of  the  Union. 
He  said : 

1  Seward  at  Washington,  vol.  ii.,  p.  109. 

*  To  Governor  Crittenden,  December  17,  1849.     MS. 

8C.  S.  Morehead  to  Governor  Crittenden,  Feb.  n,  1850.     MS. 


122  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

You  see  how  badly  things  go  at  Washington.  They  will  go  from 
bad  to  worse.  Slavery  is  on  everybody's  tongue  as  the  cause.  It 
is  in  fact  only  the  means  of  making  the  impending  issue.  Calhoun  and 
his  instruments  are  really  solicitous  only  to  break  the  Union.  They 
think  that  by  separation,  excluding  Northern  tonnage  by  heavy 
duties,  making  all  carriers  of  the  Southern  staples  belong  to  Southern 
ports,  and  the  commerce  between  the  slave  States  and  Europe  direct, 
that  Charleston  and  the  South  would  be  built  up.  Dissolution  for 
any  cause  they  think  the  consummation  of  glory  for  the  South,  and 
now  they  are  most  happy  in  supposing  they  have  a  good  pretext  to 
further  their  object.  Your  President  is,  I  believe,  one  whose  firm 
ness  is  likely  to  make  him  approach  Washington  and  Jackson  in 
renown  by  weathering  the  storm.1 

The  formidable  character  of  the  disunion  movement  was  re 
vealed  to  the  President,  and  was  met  by  him  with  patriotic 
firmness.  Without  hesitation  he  let  it  be  understood  that  if 
there  were  any  overt  act  he  would  promptly  punish  the 
traitors.  This  fact,  which  seems  to  be  well  authenticated,  has 
received  different  versions  in  the  relation.  Thurlow  Weed  in 
his  Autobiography  declares  circumstantially  that  Messrs. 
Toombs,  Stephens  and  Clingman  called  on  General  Taylor  to 
induce  him  to  veto  the  bill  permitting  California  to  enter  the 
Union  as  a  free  State;  that  "it  was  a  stormy  interview  with 
threats  of  disunion  on  one  hand  and  of  hanging  on  the  other  "  ; 
that  the  President  believed  that  Jefferson  Davis,  his  son-in- 
law,  was  the  master  spirit  in  the  movement ;  and  that  the  facts 
were  communicated  to  Senator  Hamlin,  of  Maine,  and  himself 
within  ten  minutes  after  the  interview  closed.  Mr.  Weed 
does  not  say  who  communicated  the  facts  to  him,  but  the  in 
ference  is  that  it  was  either  the  President  or  a  member  of  the 
Cabinet.  Clingman  was  an  extremist,  but  the  imputation  that 
Stephens  and  Toombs  threatened  disunion  is  undoubtedly 
unwarranted.  Their  unpublished  confidential  correspondence 
covering  this  period  contradicts  it  and  shows  that  they  were 
not  opposed  to  the  admission  of  California.  Toombs's  letter 

1  Letter  addressed  to  John  J.  Crittenden.     MS. 


Disunion  Sentiments  123 

to  the  Governor  of  Georgia,  as  we  have  seen,  reserved  the 
right  to  vote  for  her  admission.  They  favored  the  compromise 
plan  of  Mr.  Clay,  and  in  endeavoring  to  persuade  the  Presi 
dent  to  consent  to  its  substitution  in  place  of  his  own,  referred 
to  the  bold  threats  of  the  extremists  in  justification.  The  re 
ply  of  the  President  was  characteristic  of  a  blunt  and  patriotic 
soldier.1 

It  was  undoubtedly  this  threatened  danger  to  the  Union — 
the  Union  commended  to  them  in  the  farewell  words  of 
Washington  as  the  edifice  of  our  real  independence,  the  sup 
port  of  our  tranquillity  at  home,  our  peace  abroad,  our  pros 
perity,  our  safety,  and  of  the  very  liberty  which  we  so  highly 
prize — the  Union  for  which  they  had  spoken  in  language  of 
lofty  eloquence  on  occasions  of  supreme  importance — that 
moved  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr.  Corwin  to  support  compromise 
measures  in  1850.  The  country  was  expectant,  but  the 
North  was  not  prepared  for  the  part  which  these  great  leaders 
took  in  the  controversy.3 

The  speech  of  Mr.  Webster  of  the  /th  of  March  was  a  pro 
found  disappointment.  There  was  a  falling  off  in  moral  tone, 
although  the  theme  was  the  Union  and  its  blessings,  as  on  the 
occasion  of  the  immortal  reply  to  Hayne.  It  was  the  same 
Webster,  unrivalled  in  power  to  reach  the  sublime  in  argu 
ment;  and  yet  not  the  same,  as  there  was  lacking  a  like 
depth  of  conviction  in  the  utterance.  This  speech  cost  Mr. 
Webster  dear;  old  friends  fell  away,  and  harsh  and  unjust 
criticism  was  indulged  in,  imputing  interested  motives  in  con 
nection  with  the  presidential  office.  We  are,  perhaps,  none 
of  us  tolerant  where  our  feelings  are  deeply  enlisted.  On 
another  occasion,  after  the  criticisms  of  his  constituents  had 

1  For  Mr.  Weed's  account  see  vol  i.,  p.  617,  of  the  Aidobiography. 

*  Mr.  Corwin's  name  is  included  in  the  text  because  he  accepted  a  place  in  the 
Fillmore  Cabinet,  for  which  he  was  severely  censured.  But  it  is  due  to  his 
memory  to  state  the  fact  that  he  went  with  Mr.  Seward  in  support  of  the  Taylor 
plan  of  adjustment.  As  late  as  June  4th  he  wrote  to  a  friend  (I  quote  from  a 
MS.  lying  before  me)  as  follows  :  "  I  think  you  will  find  the  compromise  bill  an 
impracticable  remedy  for  agitation,  and  at  last,  the  plan  of  the  President  will  be 
found  the  only  permanent  cure  for  the  greatly  magnified  malady  which  afflicts  us." 


124  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

reached  him,  he  reviewed  his  7th  of  March  speech  in  justifica 
tion,  closing  in  these  words:  "My  heart,  my  sentiment,  my 
judgment,  demand  of  me  that  I  shall  pursue  such  a  course  as 
shall  promote  the  good  and  the  harmony  and  the  union  of 
the  whole  country."  It  was  a  younger  statesman,  charged 
with  grave  responsibilities  when  the  disunion  which  Webster 
sought  to  avert  was  straining  the  military  power  of  the  govern 
ment,  who  said  to  his  discontented  critics  that  his  paramount 
object  was  to  save  the  Union  and  neither  to  save  nor  to  de 
stroy  slavery.  And  the  country  applauded  the  patriotism  of 
Abraham  Lincoln  twelve  years  after  Webster's  condemnation. 

But  Massachusetts  was  lost  to  Mr.  Webster.  Everett  and 
Choate  and  Winthrop  and  the  mercantile  class  stood  by  him, 
but  Harvard,  the  eminent  literary  men,  and  the  brilliant  poli 
ticians  of  a  younger  generation,  while  regretting  him,  kept 
Massachusetts  in  the  van  of  the  Free  Soil  movement. 

In  April,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Foote  of  Mississippi,  a  special 
committee  of  thirteen,  of  which  Mr.  Clay  was  chairman,  was 
chosen,  to  whom  were  referred  the  various  propositions  before 
the  Senate  relating  to  the  slavery  controversy.  On  the  8th  of 
May,  Mr.  Clay  made  his  report,  accompanied  by  bills  to  give 
it  effect.  The  principal  bill,  covering  three  subjects,  provided 
for  the  admission  of  California,  with  the  boundaries  which  she 
had  proposed  and  her  free  State  constitution ;  the  establish 
ment  of  territorial  governments,  without  the  Wilmot  Proviso^ 
for  New  Mexico  and  Utah;  and  the  establishment  of  the 
boundaries  of  Texas,  and  the  exclusion  from  her  jurisdiction 
of  any  part  of  New  Mexico,  with  the  grant  to  Texas  of  ten 
millions  of  dollars  as  an  equivalent.  Two  other  bills  provided 
for  a  more  efficient  fugitive  slave  law,  and  prohibited  the  slave 
trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  This  comprehensive  scheme 
was  known  in  the  discussion  that  followed  as  the  Omnibus 
Bill. 

Mr.  Seward  represented  the  administration  in  opposing  the 
compromise.  President  Taylor  was  firm  in  his  belief  that  no 
compromise  was  necessary ;  that  it  was  the  duty  of  Congress 
to  admit  California  with  the  constitution  she  had  presented, 


The  Omnibus  Bill  125 

and  that  it  was  wiser  to  leave  the  remaining  territory  acquired 
from  Mexico  under  the  existing  military  government  until 
prepared  for  taking  on  statehood  than  to  attempt  legislation. 
This  prohibited  slave  immigration  under  the  Mexican  law,  but 
circumvented  the  Wilmot  Proviso.  But  General  Taylor  was 
convinced  that  the  people  in  all  that  region  would  form  free 
constitutions,  and  that  legislative  application  of  the  principle 
of  the  Ordinance  of  1787  was  wholly  unnecessary.  It  is  evi 
dent  that  it  had  been  his  purpose  from  the  day  of  his  inaugu 
ration  that  slavery  should  be  extended  no  further  under  his 
administration. 

This  policy  alienated  the  Southern  Whigs  from  the  admin 
istration.  The  Cabinet  was  held  responsible  rather  than  the 
President.  Alexander  H.  Stephens  believed  that  the  whole 
energies  and  influence  of  the  government  were  directed  against 
the  settlement  of  the  slavery  question,  and  that  Preston  was 
the  leader  of  the  policy,  which  seemed  to  be  an  attempt  to 
ally  General  Taylor  with  the  Free  Soilers.  The  effect  of  it 
would  be  to  exterminate  all  of  his  friends  from  the  capital  to 
the  Rio  Grande,  and  lose  him  half  of  his  support  in  the  free 
States.  Mr.  Clay's  Compromise  would  pass  the  Senate  and 
the  House  also  by  a  large  vote  if  the  administration  were  not 
so  against  it.1 

The  extremists  of  the  South  and  the  Free  Soil  Senators 
united  in  opposing  the  Omnibus  Bill.  The  former  also  ob 
jected  to  the  President's  plan  that  California  had  acted  under 
executive  dictation.  They  hoped  to  defeat  all  legislation. 
The  Free  Soil  Senators  hoped  to  secure  the  admission  of  Cali 
fornia  without  any  compromise  and  later  to  secure  affirmative 
action  on  the  Proviso  in  the  enactment  of  laws  for  the  govern 
ment  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah.  For  a  time  the  prospect  of  Mr. 
Clay's  scheme  being  realized  was  so  unfavorable  that  a  New 
York  paper2  widely  circulated  in  the  South,  asked  " Where  is 
the  Compromiser  Clay?"  to  which  it  made  answer  that  he 
was  "politically  dead  "  ;  that  he  had  betrayed  the  South;  was 

1  Alex.  H.  Stephens  to  Governor  Crittenden,  May  7,  1850.     MS. 
5  New  York  Herald. 


is6  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

a  renegade  to  his  own  State,  and  that  there  was  "not  a  Whig 
Senator,  or  Whig  member  of  the  other  House  from  the  South 
ern  section,  so  poor  and  God-forsaken  as  to  do  him  reverence." 

But  the  power  of  the  great  Kentuckian  had  not  diminished. 
When  he  spoke  every  foot  of  space  in  the  great  circular  cham 
ber  occupied  by  the  Senate  was  filled  with  eager  listeners, 
many  ladies  remaining  standing  for  hours,  and  applause 
cheered  him  as  in  other  days.1  Unbent  with  the  age  of 
seventy-three  years,  he  stood  upon  the  floor  a  commanding 
figure,  serene  and  self-possessed,  his  courteous  and  dignified 
bearing  adding  an  indefinable  grace  to  his  persuasive  argument. 
His  vigilance  never  relaxed,  although  he  became  haggard  and 
worn  during  the  eight  months  the  exciting  discussion  con 
tinued,  until  both  Houses  had  acted  decisively. 

The  conflict  was  suddenly  arrested  by  the  death  of  the  Presi 
dent  on  the  Qth  of  July,  after  a  brief  illness.  Mr.  Seward  had 
written  home  on  that  very  day  :  "The  Compromise  is  supposed 
to  be  lost,  but  Heaven  knows  what  will  be  the  change  that 
the  President's  withdrawal  from  us  would  produce."  The 
change  was  a  radical  one.  Upon  the  Vice-President  was 
placed  the  responsibility.  Mr.  Seward  advised  the  retention 
of  the  Taylor  Cabinet,  with  the  exception  of  the  Secretary  of 
War,  who  had  been  censured  by  the  House  of  Representatives 

1  "  The  popular  thirst  for  the  eloquence  of  Mr.  Clay  is  not  yet  satisfied."  May 
13,  1850.  Seward  at  Washington,  vol.  ii.,  p.  132. 

2 Ibid.,  p.  144.  Horace  Mann,  the  merciless  critic  of  Webster,  viewed  with 
alarm  the  death  of  President  Taylor.  These  extracts  from  his  diurnal  corres 
pondence  have  the  freshness  of  present  time  : 

"  WASHINGTON,  July  9,  1850. 

"  It  is  a  sad  hour.  News  has  just  come  from  the  White  House  that  the  Presi 
dent  is  dying.  If  he  dies  it  will  be  a  calamity  that  no  man  can  measure.  His 
being  a  Southern  man,  a  slaveholder  and  a  hero,  has  been  like  the  pressure  of  a 
hundred  atmospheres  upon  the  South.  If  he  dies,  they  will  feel  that  their  strong 
est  antagonist  has  been  struck  from  the  ranks  of  their  opponents." 

"July  10.  Long  before  this  reaches  you,  you  will  have  heard  that  General 
Taylor  is  gone.  It  is  indeed  a  sad  event  for  the  country. — The  course  of  General 
Taylor  has  been  such  as  to  conciliate  me,  and  all  whose  opinions  have  coincided 
with  mine,  to  a  degree  which  we  should  have  thought  beforehand  impossible. 
He  had  probably  taken  the  wisest  course  he  could  have  taken." — Life  of  Horace 
Mann,  vol.  i.,  p.  307. 


The  Omnibus  Bill  127 

for  his  relations  to  the  Galpkin  claim.  The  Southern  Whigs 
urged  the  appointment  of  a  new  Cabinet;  Mr.  Fillmore  hesi 
tated,  wished  to  delay  the  decision  thirty  days,  but  on  being 
pressed  yielded  and  accepted  the  resignation  of  the  Taylor 
Cabinet.  Mr.  Webster  was  brought  in  as  Secretary  of  State, 
and  Mr.  Corwin  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  thus  indicating 
his  purpose  to  make  a  new  departure  in  policy.  The  views 
and  wishes  of  Mr.  Clay  were  fully  met.1  The  influence  of  the 
administration  was  thrown  in  favor  of  the  Compromise  and  it 
proved  to  be  potent  in  the  final  settlement.  The  sectional 
opponents  united,  defeated  the  Omnibus  Bill,  but  every  meas 
ure  proposed  in  the  resolutions  originally  introduced  was  se 
cured  in  a  separate  act.2 

Considered  in  the  light  of  to-day  substantial  gains  were 
made  for  freedom  by  this  contest.  The  admission  of  Cali 
fornia  with  her  free  State  constitution  and  chosen  boundaries, 
under  the  circumstances,  was  a  very  great  victory.  The  pro- 
slavery  party  in  the  State  convention  intrigued  for  a  division 
of  territory  on  the  line  of  36°  30',  and  failing  there,  confi 
dently  expected  that  it  would  be  carried  through  Congress  as 
a  compromise.3  Jefferson  Davis  said,  as  we  have  seen,  that 
such  a  division  and  the  distinct  recognition  of  the  institution 
of  slavery  south  of  that  line  was  the  only  compromise  he  would 
accept.  He  was  defeated.  There  was  no  affirmative  action 
carrying  slavery  to  any  territory.  It  was  the  opinion  of  Mr. 
Webster  at  that  time — and  this  was  expressed  in  justification 
of  his  course,  and  in  gratulation  to  the  country — that  there 
was  not  a  rod  of  territory  belonging  to  the  United  States,  the 
character  of  which,  for  slavery  or  no  slavery,  was  not  already 

"  Mr.  Clay  is  happy.  The  administration  is,  in  all  its  parts,  acceptable  to 
him,  and  he  is  now  the  dictator  he  aimed  to  be." — Seivard  at  Washington,  vol. 
ii.,  p.  148. 

2  We  remark  a  curious  fact  in  this  connection.     The  recorded  votes  on  the  four 
leading  measures  show  that  only  seventeen  out  of  sixty  Senators  voted  for  all  of 
them,  and  yet  they  all  received  a  constitutional  majority  ;  and  of  the  committee 
of  thirteen  who  reported  the  measures,  only  four  voted  for  all  of  them. 

3  See  article  in  The  Century  Magazine,  vol.  xl.,  How  California  Came  into  the 
Union. 


128  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

fixed  by  some  irrepealable  law.1  He  believed,  and  the  whole 
country  believed,  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  a  perma 
nent  barrier  for  the  protection  of  the  territory  lying  west  of 
the  Missouri.  The  breaking  down  of  that  barrier  forms  the 
next  chapter  in  the  slavery  controversy,  in  which  is  recorded 
the  greatest  political  blunder  in  the  history  of  the  Republic. 

When  the  resolution  introduced  by  Daniel  Gott  of  New 
York,  on  the  2ist  of  December,  1848,  instructing  the  com 
mittee  for  the  District  of  Columbia  to  report  a  bill  prohibiting 
the  slave  trade  in  the  District,  was  adopted  by  the  House,  the 
Southern  members  withdrew  and  the  whole  South  was  thrown 
into  the  most  turbulent  and  furious  excitement.2  Now  this 
measure  was  secured,  and  with  the  aid  of  Southern  votes. 

The  one  measure  that  went  to  perpetuate  the  barbarism  of 
slavery — that  struck  at  the  moral  sentiment  of  the  country, 
and  that  hastened  the  inevitable  conflict — was  the  fugitive 
slave  law.  The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  Prigg  vs. 
The  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania  invited  further  legisla 
tion  to  cure  the  defects  of  the  law  of  1793.  The  bill  reported 
by  Mr.  Clay  from  the  special  committee  of  thirteen  proposed 
to  effect  this  in  a  way  that  would  have  been  a  safeguard  to 
free  colored  persons  beyond  anything  in  the  original  law,  and 
without  disturbing  the  peace  of  communities  where  arrests 
should  be  made.  Claimants  were  required  to  produce  records 
of  identification  under  seal  of  some  competent  tribunal,  and 

1  Speech  of  June  17,  1850.     Debates  of  Congress,  vol.  xvi.,  p.  558.     Col.  Benton 
adds  in  a  footnote:   "It  is  impossible  to  read  the  speeches  of  this  session  and 
hear,  as  it  were,  the  last  words  of  the  last  great  men  of  that  wonderful  time, 
without  having  the  feelings  profoundly  moved  by  the  deep  danger  to  the  Union 
which  stood  before  them,   and  the  patriotic  attempts  they  made  to  avert  that 
danger." 

2  Speech  of  the  Hon.  Pierre  Soule  at  Opelousas,  La.,  Sept.  6,  1851,  who  quotes 
approvingly  the  comment  made  by  the  New  Orleans  Picayune,  when  the  vote  was 
taken  on  Mr.  Gott's  resolution  : 

"  This  is  such  a  direct  meddling  with  the  right  of  property  of  the  citizens  of  the 
District,  and  so  bold  a  step  towards  interference  with  the  rights  of  the  States, 
that  the  South  must  necessarily  make  an  issue  on  it.  The  aggressive  spirit  of 
Northern  abolitionism  should  be  met  here,  and  the  consequences  of  a  collision  in 
all  their  breadth  and  depth  staked  upon  it." — Pamphlet,  p.  9. 


The  Omnibus  Bill  129 

to  give  bond  to  allow  the  arrested  person  a  public  trial  to 
establish  his  freedom,  and  if  found  entitled  to  freedom  to  re 
turn  him  whence  he  was  seized.  As  passed,  the  fugitive 
slave  law  was  a  very  different  measure,  without  safeguards 
for  the  slave,  harsh  and  repugnant  to  the  sentiments  of  hu 
manity.  It  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Mason  of  Virginia  toward 
the  close  of  the  struggle  and  forced  through  under  the  cover 
of  compromise.  If  Northern  representatives  had  not  shirked 
their  duty  it  would  have  been  defeated,  or  amended  to  con 
form  to  the  original  report. 

During  the  prolonged  contest  in  the  Senate,  the  anti-slavery 
sentiment  of  the  North  did  not  lack  for  able  exponents.  The 
speeches  of  "Honest"  John  Davis  of  Massachusetts,  of  Mr. 
Seward  and  of  Mr.  Chase,  have  their  place  with  those  of  Webster 
and  Clay  and  Benton.  Ohio's  new  Senator  showed  that  he 
was  capable  of  the  highest  intellectual  reach  and  that  he  was 
thoroughly  patriotic  and  sincere.1  The  "higher  law,"  of  which 
Mr.  Seward  discoursed,  created  some  excitement  and  extended 
comment,  but  it  is  less  calculated  to  attract  the  attention  of 
the  historian  than  the  philosophical  reflection  that  "complete 
and  immediate  emancipation  "  would  surely  follow  disunion 
and  civil  war. 

1  "  We  of  the  West,"  said  Mr.  Chase,  in  speaking  of  the  compromise  measures, 
"are  in  the  habit  of  looking  upon  the  Union  as  we  look  upon  the  arch  of  Heaven, 
without  a  thought  that  it  can  ever  decay  or  fall.  With  equal  reverence  we  regard 
the  great  ordinance  of  freedom  under  whose  benign  influence,  within  little  more 
than  half  a  century,  a  wilderness  has  been  converted  into  an  empire.  Ohio,  the 
eldest  born  of  the  Constitution  and  the  Ordinance,  cleaves  and  will  cleave 
faithfully  to  both." 

VOL.  I. — 9. 


CHAPTER   V 

INDUSTRIAL   PROGRESS  AND  THE  TARIFF— FUGITIVE  SLAVES 

—FILIBUSTERING    IN   CUBA— THE   NEW    DEMOCRACY 

AND   DOUGLAS 

SO  completely  did  these  purely  political  questions  growing 
out  of  the  war  with   Mexico  absorb  public  attention, 
that  less  thought  was  given  to  other  subjects  than  their 
importance  warranted.     New  social   influences   were  coming 
into  play,  which  were  destined  to  widen  the  sectional  diver 
gence,    and,    indeed,   to   change    the    character   of  American 
civilization. 

While  the  American  soldiers  were  bringing  to  a  brilliant 
close  a  war  for  conquest,  and  American  statesmen  were  wran 
gling  over  the  fruits  thereof,  the  spirit  of  liberty  was  abroad  in 
Europe,  filling  the  hearts  of  the  people  with  hopes  which 
promised  a  greater  measure  of  human  happiness  and  the  en 
joyment  of  responsibilities  which  of  right  belong  to  the  free. 
There  were  uprisings  everywhere  on  the  continent  against  the 
system  of  despotic  repression  which  took  its  rise  under  the 
Holy  Alliance.  Louis  Philippe  fell,  the  Emperor  of  Germany 
fled  from  Vienna,  the  Pope  was  a  fugitive  at  Gaeta,  and  sud 
denly  Paris,  Berlin,  Frankfort,  Vienna,  Pesth  and  Rome  be 
came  the  capitals  of  virtual  if  not  acknowledged  republics. 
Thus  1848  gave  brilliant  assurance  of  the  deliverance  of  all 
Europe  from  the  wrongs  and  abuses  which  had  so  long  pros 
trated  the  peoples  in  the  dust.  Everywhere  concessions  were 
made  to  the  people  and  the  future  was  full  of  promise  for  re- 

130 


Industrial  Progress  and  the  Tariff         131 

form.  But  the  close  of  1849  witnessed  the  triumph  and  res 
toration  of  despotism,  the  re-establishment  of  the  repressive 
policy  of  Metternich.  Such  of  the  patriotic  leaders  as  escaped 
sought  refuge  in  the  United  States.  Governor  Ujhazi  and 
companions  immediately  upon  arrival  in  New  York  renounced 
all  allegiance  to  Austria  and  took  preliminary  steps  to  become 
American  citizens.  Later  our  government  secured  the  release 
of  Kossuth,  placed  a  public  vessel  at  his  service  and  made  him 
its  guest.  The  popular  ovations  that  greeted  this  wonderful 
man  are  still  remembered  by  thousands  who  participated  in 
them.  The  tide  of  immigration  that  now  set  in  brought  to 
our  shores  industrious,  worthy  persons,  many  highly  educated, 
republicans  at  heart,  who  in  a  few  years  sealed  their  patriotism 
in  defence  of  the  Union.1 

To  aid  these  new  citizens  who  chiefly  sought  the  free  West, 
where  labor  was  held  to  be  honorable,  to  become  prosperous 
and  happy,  educational  facilities  were  everywhere  increased, 
the  acquisition  of  homes  was  rendered  easy,  and  few  burdens 
were  imposed.  The  common  interest  was  promoted  by  the 
new  postage  rates  of  five  and  ten  cents,  which  had  gone  into 
effect  during  the  Polk  administration,  and  by  the  extension  of 
mail  routes. 

The  genius  of  enterprise  and  invention  promised  more  won 
derful  things.  Already  in  1849,  57°°  miles  of  railroad  had 
been  constructed  in  the  United  States;  telegraph  lines  had 
reached  the  Mississippi,  and  the  bold  and  ingenious  project  of 
Henry  O'Reilly  to  extend  these  across  the  plains  to  the  Golden 
Gate  in  conjunction  with  a  government  post-express  was  being 
discussed ;  a  new  importance  was  given  to  agriculture  by  the 
use  of  machinery  developed  from  the  invention  of  McCormick; 
the  introduction  of  the  rotary  press  for  printing  was  multiply 
ing  books  and  papers;  and  the  rapid  building  of  a  railroad 
across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  brought  nearer  the  El  Dorado 
just  incorporated  into  the  Union  of  States.  Related  to  this 

1  The  extent  of  this  new  movement  will  best  be  understood  by  a  comparison  of 
figures.  In  1820  the  immigrants  numbered  8000;  in  1849,  300,000;  in  1850, 

428,000. 


i32  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

last  event  was  the  successful  negotiation  of  an  important  treaty 
with  Great  Britain,  which  secured  the  neutrality  of  inter- 
oceanic  ways ;  which  guaranteed  to  the  Central  American  states 
freedom  from  the  encroachment  of  foreign  Powers,  and  in 
augurated  a  new  era  in  diplomacy,  the  accomplishment  of 
which  reflects  honor  on  Secretary  Clayton  and  the  Taylor 
administration. 

The  seventh  census,  which  showed  the  United  States  to 
have  a  population  of  23,191,876,*  disclosed  the  fact  that  the 
industrial  conditions  of  the  country  were  highly  satisfactory. 
The  increase  in  wealth  had  been  sixty-four  per  cent.,  as  against 
forty-two  during  the  previous  decade.  The  discovery  of  gold 
in  California  attracted  a  considerable  population  thither, 
opened  a  new  field  of  trade  in  which  the  States  had  a  monopoly, 
and  created  a  new  supply  of  money  which  speedily  found  its 
way  to  the  Eastern  marts  and  stimulated  new  enterprises.  All 
labor  commanded  higher  wages,  which  were  paid  in  the  money 
of  the  world,  and  the  country  took  on  that  appearance  of 
prosperity  that  insures  an  increase  of  social  comfort  and  of 
happiness.  The  failure  of  crops  in  Europe  in  1846-47,  and 
the  distress  that  followed,  created  an  enormous  demand  for 
our  agricultural  products,  for  which  high  prices  were  received, 
and  still  further  increased  our  wealth.  This  advantage  was 
continued  after  the  distress  had  been  relieved  and  good  crops 
had  been  garnered  in  Great  Britain,  by  the  revolutions  of 
1848  on  the  continent,  which  diminished  production  and  cut 
off  competing  sources  of  supply.  The  tide  of  immigration, 
now  flowing  in  unprecedented  volume,  still  further  stimulated 
growth  in  the  United  States,  by  opening  up  new  lands  and 
adding  new  and  skilled  hands  to  manufacturing  enterprises, 

1  The  census  gave  the  following  results  as  to  the  population  of  the  sections  : 

Free  States 13,434,798 

Slave  States  (white) 6,412,503 

Slave  States  (slaves) 3,200,412 

When  the  apportionment  was  made  for  Representatives  under  this  enumeration 
the  6,412,503  whites  of  the  South  and  their  slave  property  had  90  ;  the  13,434,798 
inhabitants  of  the  North,  144.  With  slaves  omitted  from  the  calculation,  the 
North's  representation  would  have  been  180 ;  the  South's  54. 


Industrial  Progress  and  the  Tariff         133 

which  despite  the  non-protective  tariff  of  1846  were  under 
taken.  This  was  especially  true  in  the  central  West,  where 
the  home  market  was  constantly  growing  in  importance  and 
the  cost  of  transportation  was  a  considerable  element  in  every 
transaction. 

The  ten  years  following  the  enactment  of  the  Walker 
revenue  tariff  of  1846  opened  a  wide  field  of  controversy 
between  the  political  economists  of  the  free  trade  and  protec 
tion  schools.  Many  years  afterwards  the  author  of  the  tariff 
of  1846  reviewed  its  workings,  and  declared  that  its  benefits 
had  exceeded  the  most  sanguine  expectations;  and  that  none 
of  the  evils — destruction  of  manufactures,  discouragement  of 
agriculture  and  increase  of  frauds  on  the  revenue — predicted 
of  it  had  been  realized.  He  gave  to  his  tariff  the  whole  credit 
for  the  great  increase  of  wealth  from  1850  to  1860,  which  was 
in  excess  of  126  per  cent., — nearly  double  that  of  the  preceding 
decade.  Our  agricultural  products  had  increased  ninety-five 
per  cent.,  and  our  manufactures  eighty-seven  per  cent.,  while 
our  imports,  exports  and  revenue  had  nearly  tripled  in  the 
same  period  of  time,  and  our  domestic  trade  had  more  than 
doubled.  Even  our  carrying  trade  grew  with  such  rapidity 
that  in  a  few  years  our  tonnage  exceeded  the  tonnage  of  Eng 
land.  Therefore  it  seemed  clear  to  him  that  when  the  shackles 
were  removed  from  our  commerce  and  industry,  including  the 
immense  indirect  taxation  by  the  tariff  of  1842,  the  country 
sprang  forward  at  a  bound  unparalleled  in  history.1 

While  Mr.  Walker  took  into  account  the  production  of  gold 
in  California,  he  left  out  of  his  calculation  the  effects  of  the 
very  large  immigration  of  industrious  people  during  the  ten 
years  following  the  enactment  of  the  tariff  of  1846.  Nearly 
three  millions  were  added  to  our  own  population  who  engaged 
in  productive  labor,  augmenting  our  wealth  and  stimulating 
enterprise  in  every  field  of  industry.  If  these  newcomers 
upon  their  arrival  were  possessed  of  only  an  average  of  twenty 
dollars  each  (which  was  probably  below  the  actual  sum)  the 

1  Our  National  Finances,  letter  of  Robert  J.  Walker,  ex-Secretary  of  the  Treas 
ury,  Nov.  30,  1867  (pamphlet),  pp.  1-15. 


134  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

currency  of  the  United  States  was  increased  by  nearly  sixty 
millions  of  dollars. 

But  protectionists  attributed  the  prosperity  to  excep 
tional  conditions  at  home  and  abroad,  upon  which  it  was  un 
wise  to  base  a  fiscal  policy.  They  contended  that  a  system 
which  discouraged  manufacturing  enterprises  and  unduly 
stimulated  agriculture  was  a  direct  injury  to  the  latter  interest, 
and  cited  these  facts  in  proof  :  That  the  export  of  wheat  and 
flour  during  the  eighteen  years  preceding  1849  averaged  only 
$8,647,700  a  year;  whereas  the  four  millions  of  inhabitants 
engaged  in  manufacture  and  mining  consumed  five  times  as 
much,  thus  furnishing  a  much  more  important  market  for  the 
farmer.1  The  petitions  of  those  engaged  in  manufacturing  in 
dustries  laid  before  Congress,  asking  for  a  return  to  the  tariff 
of  1842,  were  proof  that  foreign  competition  was  driving  home 
manufactures  to  the  wall.2  This  was  asserted  to  be  especially 
true  of  the  woollen  industry,  which  decreased  every  year  after 
the  tariff  of  1846  went  into  effect  until  it  was  on  the  verge 
of  extinction  after  a  ten  years'  struggle.3  The  reduction  of 
duties  on  iron  products  increased  the  imports  four  and  a 
quarter  times  and  "destroyed,  in  a  good  degree,  the  compe 
tition  of  our  own  produce  and  manufactures."  The  foreign 
manufacturer,  by  reducing  the  price  of  our  own  product  and 
by  a  reduction  of  tariff  rates,  having  possessed  himself  of  the 
control  of  our  market,  proceeded  to  raise  his  prices,  to  the  in 
jury  of  American  consumers.4  The  heavy  importations  which 
had  increased  from  $117,254,564,  in  1845,  to  S1/^,  138,  318,  in 


1  Report   of  the  Committee  on    Ways   and   Means,    1849.     A   report  for  1853 
showed  that,  excepting  cotton  and  tobacco,  our  total  exports  of  other  agricultural 
products,  including  live  stock,  amounted  to  $33,809,126  ;  whereas  the  whole  value 
of  these  products  was  $1,551,176,490. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Financial  History  of  the  United  States,  17  8g-  1860,  p.  457.     This  author  quotes 
the  Tariff  Report,  Aug.  n,  1856,  34th  Congress,  first  session  :   "  The  home  market 
was  destroyed  for  the  farmer  ;  in  the  foreign  markets  he  could  not  compete  ;  and 
the  flocks  were  sent  to  the  slaughter  because  the  woollen  factories  had  been  sold 
at  auction,  or  converted  to  other  services."     The  decrease  was  in  the  production 
of  fine  woollens. 

4  Report  of  Thomas  Corwin,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  January  20,  1853. 


Industrial  Progress  and  the  Tariff         135 

1850,  and  $304,562,381,  in  1854,  drained  the  country  of  its 
gold  and  raised  the  rates  for  money,  to  the  distress  of  men 
engaged  in  business. 

Yet  the  victory  remained  with  the  free  trade  advocates.  So 
little  did  the  subject  engross  the  attention  of  the  general  pub 
lic,  all  efforts  of  the  Whigs  to  revive  the  protection  policy 
failed.  Mr.  Webster,  who  represented  the  great  merchants  of 
Boston,  Mr.  Morehead,  Mr.  Berrien  and  other  leaders  had  hoped 
to  bury  the  slavery  issue  beneath  a  movement  to  restore  the 
tariff  of  1842,  and  thus  reunite  the  Whigs  of  the  two  sections; 
but  it  was  impracticable.  A  large  portion  of  the  party  in  the 
North  had  drifted  away  on  another  issue,  while  party  lines  in 
the  South  had  been  practically  obliterated.  The  Southern 
section  was  devoted  to  agriculture  and  chiefly  to  the  produc 
tion  of  those  staples,  cotton,  rice  and  tobacco,  which  made 
up  so  large  a  part  of  our  exports.  Most  of  those  statesmen 
who  in  the  beginning  of  their  careers  (as  in  the  case  of  Mr. 
Calhoun)  believed  in  encouraging  manufactures,  adopted  later 
the  views  of  Mr.  Jefferson  that  an  agricultural  people  were  the 
happiest,  and  advocated  a  tariff  for  revenue  only.  Yet  this 
sentiment  was  not  confined  to  the  South :  it  was  entertained 
by  the  majority  of  the  Democratic  party,1  and  the  Free  Demo 
cratic  element. 

The  revenue  derived  from  the  large  importations  more  than 
met  the  necessities  of  the  government,  and  in  1857  further 

1  A  committee  of  representative  men  appointed  by  a  Democratic  convention  of 
Hamilton  County,  Ohio,  in  1845,  proclaimed  this  doctrine  :  That  "manufactures 
are  not  of  themselves  objects  of  desire  to  a  free  people  or  of  favor  for  a  free  gov 
ernment,"  and  that  they  did  "  not  deserve  political  favor,  where  land  is  abundant 
and  the  people  free."  Therefore  they  solemnly  protested  against  a  policy  which, 
like  that  of  the  tariff  of  1842,  "  aims  to  withhold  and  withdraw  our  people  from  the 
sunny  sky  and  verdant  landscapes  of  the  West,  to  toil  amid  the  lurid  and  mephitic 
atmosphere  of  factories  and  cities."  See  Letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
on  the  Effect  of  the  Tariff  of  1842  on  the  Agricultural  and  other  Interests  of  the 
West,  by  a  Committee  of  the  Democratic  Convention  of  Hamilton  County, 
Ohio,  1845  (pamphlet),  pp.  1-24. 

This  letter,  which  was  undoubtedly  the  joint  production  of  Elwood  Fisher  and 
Charles  Reemelin,  supplied  Mr.  Walker  with  hints  for  his  arguments  in  favor  of 
his  revenue  system  in  1846. 


136  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

reductions  were  made  in  the  tariff  tax.  It  was  suggested  by 
representatives  of  the  protection  principle  that  the  revenue 
might  better  be  reduced  by  increasing  the  tax  on  articles  in 
the  manufacture  of  which  American  capital  was  employed, 
but  the  acquiescence  in  the  revenue  tariff  was  so  general  that 
all  parties  participated  in  the  reduction  of  1857.  A  majority 
of  the  New  England  Senators  and  Representatives  voted  for 
the  measure,  while  the  opposition  came  chiefly  from  Pennsyl 
vania  and  the  West,  where  the  iron  interest  was  much  de 
pressed.  Immediately  after  this  act  went  into  effect  a  financial 
panic  swept  over  the  country.  This  hastened  the  time  when 
the  policy  of  protection  was  destined  to  play  an  important 
part  in  effecting  a  political  revolution;  but  until  1860  it  was 
virtually  eliminated  from  political  campaigns. 

In  the  place  of  old  party  issues  one  subject  of  fearful  omen 
is  to  pervade  American  politics,  and  in  the  changes  that  begin 
with  1851  and  increase  in  volume  during  the  decade,  it  is  the 
influence  that  shapes  the  destiny  of  parties,  disrupts  religious 
bodies,  augments  or  diminishes  trade,  and  invades  and  de 
moralizes  social  life. 

The  zeal  everywhere  displayed  by  political  leaders  and  by 
the  great  merchants,  in  declaring  that  the  compromise  meas 
ures  were  a  complete  adjustment  of  the  slavery  controversy, 
was  irrefragable  evidence  of  a  condition  of  unrest  which  could 
not  be  laid  by  solemn  declarations.  No  written  pledges  to 
stop  agitation  and  to  refuse  to  countenance  any  person  hostile 
to  the  peace  measures  sufficed  to  reconcile  the  conscience  of 
the  North  to  Mason's  drastic  measure  for  the  rendition  of  the 
poor  slave  fleeing  from  bondage,  which  had  been  substituted 
for  the  mild  and  well-guarded  proposition  of  Mr.  Clay.1  And 

1  The  politicians  and  business  men  of  New  York  combined  to  compel  an 
acquiescence  in  the  Compromise.  A  great  ratification  meeting  held  at  Castle  Gar 
den,  Oct.  30,  1850,  was  followed  in  September,  1851,  by  the  merchants  signing 
a  pledge  to  carry  out  the  resolutions  of  the  Castle  Garden  meeting,  not  to  support 
any  candidate  hostile  to  the  peace  measures,  or  to  countenance  further  agitation. 

While  this  action  in  the  North  brought  to  bear  a  powerful  influence  to  suppress 
agitation,  the  course  of  Senator  Foote  on  the  reconvening  of  Congress  defeated 
the  policy  of  suppression.  Thinking  that  a  declaration  by  the  Senate  as  to  the 


Dominance  of  Slavery  Issue  137 

yet  the  faithful  execution  of  that  law  was  the  chief  condition 
on  which  the  cotton  States  would  consent  to  remain  in  the 
Union.1  The  Nashville  secession  convention  had  fallen  before 
the  Compromise,  which  strengthened  the  hands  of  Union  men 
in  the  Southern  States.  Tennessee  repudiated  the  disunion 
utterances  that  had  dishonored  her  capital  by  electing  in  1851 
a  Whig  Governor3  and  a  Whig  Legislature,  which  insured  the 
choice  of  a  United  States  Senator  to  represent  the  Union 
sentiment  of  the  State.  In  North  Carolina,  Edward  Stanly, 
an  able  and  patriotic  Representative,  who  had  been  called  a 
"Southern  man  with  Northern  principles,"  was  re-elected  by 
an  increased  majority.  The  counties  of  northern  Georgia 
voted  almost  solidly  "Union,"  and  even  Mississippi  was  car 
ried  for  the  Compromise  despite  the  strenuous  efforts  of 
Jefferson  Davis,  aided  by  Governor  Quitman.3 

In  these  representative  cotton  States  the  contest  which  was 
prolonged  through  many  months  was  one  of  the  most  re 
markable  in  Southern  political  history.  It  was  between  the 
secession  and  Union  elements — between  those  who  believed 

finality  of  the  Compromise  would  strengthen  him  in  Mississippi,  he  introduced  a 
resolution  to  that  effect,  thus  thrusting  the  banished  agitation  again  upon  the 
Senate,  and  suggesting  a  doubt  as  to  the  justice  of  the  compromise  measures. 

1  "  That  it  is  the  deliberate  opinion  of  this  convention  that  upon  the  faithful 
execution    of    the    fugitive    slave   bill   by    the    proper   authorities   depends  the 
preservation  of  our  much-loved  Union." — Fifth  resolution  of  Georgia  State  con 
vention,  probably  penned  by  Alex.  H.  Stephens. 

2  William  B.  Campbell,  who  publicly  declared  that  while  he  was  a  Whig  he  was 
above  all  "for  the  Union  of  the  States  under  our  present  glorious  Constitution," 
to  the  preservation  of  which  he  pledged  life,  fortune  and  honor.     His  opponent 
was  handicapped  by  the  disunion  attitude  of  the  Democratic  party  of  the  State. 
See  Phelan's  History  of  Tennessee,  p.  434. 

3  "  That  we  had  a  division  in  relation  to  the  measures  enacted  in  1850,  is  true ; 
that  the  Southern  Rights  men  became  the  minority  in  the  election  which  resulted, 
is  true.     .     .     .     Our  flag  was  never  borne  from  the  field.     We  had  carried  it  in 
the  face  of  defeat,  with  a  knowledge  that  defeat  awaited  it ;  but  scarcely  had  the 
smoke  of  the  battle  passed  away  which  proclaimed  another  victor,  before  the  general 
voice  admitted  that  the  field  again  was  ours.     .     .     .     The  next  election  which 
occurred   showed  that  we   possessed   the  State  beyond   controversy." — Jefferson 
Davis  in  reply  to  Stephen  A.   Douglas,   May  17,  1860.      Cong.  Globe.     Rise  and 
Fall,  vol.  i.,   p.    44.     Compare  with    Senator    Foote's   views,     The  War   of  the 
Rebellion . 


138  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

that,  as  a  conflict  was  inevitable,  the  South  should  secede  be 
fore  the  disparity  between  the  sections  greatly  increased,  and 
those  who  held  that  the  South  would  stand  unjustified  before 
the  world  for  any  step  towards  disunion  until  the  government 
committed  some  overt  act  against  her  rights.1  In  Mississippi 
the  two  Senators  represented  the  opposing  views,  and  after  an 
animated  canvass  Senator  Foote,  who  had  proposed  the  com 
mittee  of  thirteen  and  supported  the  Compromise,  was  elected 
Governor  by  a  small  majority.2  The  Georgia  secessionists — 
Southern  Rights  party — nominated  ex-Governor  McDonald, 
for  Governor,  and  entered  upon  the  canvass  with  great  confi 
dence.  Early  in  June  the  Constitutional  Union  party,  which 
was  made  up  of  Whigs  and  Democrats,  held  a  convention  and 
nominated  Howell  Cobb  for  Governor.  The  resolutions 
adopted  declared  in  favor  of  the  Compromise;  declared  the 
party's  devotion  to  the  Union  of  the  States,  and  denounced 
the  course  of  the  Southern  Rights  party  as  calculated  to  create 
dissensions  and  endanger  the  Union. 

The  Southern  Rights  party  was  constituted  of  secessionists 
who,  finding  the  time  not  propitious  for  their  purpose,  de 
clared  that  they  were  in  favor  of  some  measure  of  redress  for 
the  wrongs  committed  by  the  North  that  was  constitutional, 
and  they  endeavored  to  persuade  the  people  into  the  belief 
that  an  act  of  non-intercourse  by  the  State  Legislatures  would 
be  a  peaceful  and  effectual  mode  of  resistance.3  This  was  re 
peating  the  South  Carolina  nullification  policy  which  was 
crushed  by  Jackson.  The  Georgia  secessionists  hoped  now  to 
be  more  successful  and  by  inducing  the  State  to  adopt  non- 
intercourse — the  first  step — draw  the  other  cotton  States  into 
a  league  that  should  involve  disunion  as  a  logical  consequence. 
During  the  campaign  the  real  purpose  of  the  secessionists  was 
exposed  by  Cobb,  Stephens  and  Toombs  on  the  stump.  Mr. 
Cobb  received  the  endorsement  of  a  majority  of  the  people, 

1  Correspondence  of  Robert  Toombs.     MS. 

8  General  Quitman,  who  had  been  first  entered  as  the  Secession  candidate,  was 
withdrawn  in  the  midst  of  the  canvass  and  Jefferson  Davis  substituted.  Foote's 
majority  was  only  999. 

3  Correspondence  of  Alex.  H.  Stephens.     MS. 


Dominance  of  Slavery  Issue  139 

which  postponed  the  proclamation  of  a  Southern  confederacy 
a  few  years  longer. 

Admonished  by  this  defeat,  the  disunionists  adopted  new 
tactics.  They  bent  their  energies  to  consolidating  the  South 
and  then  offered  a  union  with  the  Democrats  of  the  North  on 
a  pro-slavery  basis.  The  extent  and  the  force  of  this  move 
ment  were  revealed  by  the  presidential  election  of  1852. 

The  elections  in  the  Northern  States  in  1851  showed  that 
the  Democratic  party  was  reaping  the  benefit  of  the  Compro 
mise,  as  it  was  able  to  command  a  larger  support  in  the  South 
than  the  opposing  party,  and  thus  to  hold  out  greater  induce 
ments  to  aspiring  politicians.  It  carried  Pennsylvania  and 
Ohio  by  large  majorities.  The  defeat  of  Governor  Johnston, 
of  Pennsylvania,  who  shared  with  Mr.  Seward  the  maledic 
tions  of  the  pro-slavery  press,  was  a  severe  blow  to  his  party, 
as  it  placed  that  great  State  in  line  with  New  York  in  the 
election  of  a  President.  In  Ohio  the  Whigs  nominated  for 
Governor,  Samuel  F.  Vinton,  a  statesman  of  thoroughly  con 
servative  character  who  had  served  as  chairman  of  the  Com 
mittee  of  Ways  and  Means  during  the  Mexican  War  with 
conspicuous  ability.  Even  the  high  character  and  fitness  of 
Mr.  Vinton  failed  to  secure  the  return  of  the  Free  Soil  Whigs, 
who  voted  for  Samuel  Lewis,  thus  giving  the  Democrats  an 
easy  victory.  On  the  other  hand,  many  Free  Democrats  who 
had  voted  for  Van  Buren  in  1848  supported  the  Democratic 
State  ticket. 

The  dream  of  Senator  Chase  that  it  was  possible  to  recon 
struct  the  Democratic  party  on  Jeffersonian  principles  was  not 
dissipated  until  after  the  next  Democratic  national  conven 
tion.  By  his  persuasion  a  convention  of  Democrats  in  Ohio, 
in  1851,  had  denounced  "the  Whig  Compromise  of  1850"  ;  had 
declared  that  the  Democracy  of  the  Union  was  competent  to 
dispose  of  the  question  of  slavery  and  its  relations  to  the  State 
and  national  governments  on  a  permanent  and  final  basis,  as 
follows:  "Abstinence  from  all  interference  with  the  internal 
legislation  of  any  State,  whether  upon  the  subject  of  slavery, 
or  any  other  municipal  concern ;  the  severance  of  the  national 


140  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

government  from  all  support  of  slavery,  and  the  exercise  of  its 
legitimate  influence  on  the  side  of  freedom."  To  reconcile 
the  Southern  brethren  to  this  broad  policy  he  offered  this 
additional  resolution  : 

That  free  trade  is  the  true  policy  of  all  nations,  to  which  all 
nations  must  ultimately  return;  but  while  the  revenues  of  the 
country  are  mainly  derived,  as  now,  from  imports,  every  interest 
should  be  equal,  in  the  regard  of  government,  in  respect  to  burdens 
imposed.1 

This  episode  is  an  amusing  satire  on  the  real  purposes  of  the 
Democracy  of  this  period.  Those  purposes  were  to  cement 
the  Union  by  strengthening  slavery,  and  to  secure  the  control 
of  every  agency  of  government  to  that  end.  The  leaders 
alone  seemed  to  understand  the  extent  to  which  society  was 
compromised  with  slavery,  and  calculated  with  precision  the 
conservative  force  of  this  relation.  If  the  sentiment  of  the 
Christian  nations  of  the  world  was  against  human  bondage, 
those  nations  were  yet  the  bulwark  of  the  system.  They  sup 
plied  the  stimulus  for  its  expansion ;  they  encouraged  the  slave 
trade  with  its  accumulating  horrors;  they  increased  the  exer 
tions  of  the  slave  drivers.  Society  derived  its  wealth  and  its 
comfort  from  slave  labor.  Millions  wrought  its  products  into 
new  forms,  and  were  dependent  upon  the  continued  supply 
thereof  for  their  daily  bread.  That  this  is  no  exaggeration  of 
the  conditions  will  be  made  clear  from  what  follows. 

British  legislation  in  1846,  equalizing  the  duties  on  free  and 
slave  sugar,  prostrated  the  agricultural  industries  in  the  British 
West  Indies,  which  had  been  languishing  since  emancipation, 
and  gave  a  new  impetus  to  those  of  Cuba  and  Brazil,  Down 
to  this  period  a  discriminating  duty,  promised  by  Lord  Mel 
bourne's  government  to  the  planters  in  1834,  had  rendered  it 
possible  to  continue  the  cultivation  of  coffee  and  sugar,  but 
when  that  was  removed  the  property  invested  in  the  planta 
tions  was  virtually  confiscated.  Within  six  months  after  the 

1  Resolutions  of  the  Convention  of  the  Democracy  of  Northwestern  Ohio  (pam 
phlet,  1851),  p.  8. 


Pervasive  Influence  of  Slavery  141 

law  went  into  effect  the  great  influx  of  slave-grown  sugar  re 
duced  the  value  from  £26  a  ton  to  ,£14  a  ton,  which  was  £6  a 
ton  less  than  it  could  be  produced  for  by  free  labor.1  From 
the  standpoint  of  economy,  emancipation  had  proved  a  blun 
der.  The  colonies  enjoyed  their  greatest  prosperity  when  it 
was  possible  to  renew  the  labor  employed  every  seven  years. 
With  the  loss  of  fresh  hands  decadence  set  in,  and  was  ac 
celerated  by  emancipation.  The  percentage  of  difference  be 
tween  free-  and  slave-labor  production  was  as  seven  to  sixteen, 
being  equal  at  five  per  cent,  to  an  investment  of  about  thirty- 
two  million  pounds  sterling  of  property  annihilated  in  ten  years.2 
The  experience  of  the  Jamaica  planters  was  similar  to,  but  less 
disastrous  than,  that  of  the  French  in  San  Domingo.  Under 
slavery  that  colony  exported  672,000,000  pounds  of  sugar  and 
consumed  nearly  $50,000,000  worth  of  French  manufactures, 
but  under  freedom  and  a  state  of  revolution  commerce  was 
nearly  destroyed. 

This  depressed  condition  invited  criticism.  The  press 
lamented  the  past.  One  hundred  and  forty  million  pounds 
sterling  had  been  spent  in  fifteen  years  to  destroy  slavery  and 
the  slave  trade,  to  what  end? 

Our  poorer  people  have  been  deprived  of  comforts  which  would 
have  sweetened,  literally  and  figuratively,  their  existence,  because 
we  would  deal  heroically  with  slavery  and  the  slave  trade.  The 
chains  of  the  negro  have  been  broken  in  marble.  The  fame  of 
many  renowned  names  has  been  won  by  feats  of  eloquence  and 
zeal  in  this  sacred  cause.  We  celebrated  many  victories  over  the 
iniquity.  But  lo!  slavery  and  the  slave  trade  are  stronger  than 
ever.  On  this  subject  England  has  done  two  noble  things,  and 
committed  two  blunders.  The  nobleness  has  been  ethical,  and  the 
blunders  have  been  economical.3 

Happy  would  it  have  been,  exclaimed  a  writer  in  Black- 
wood^  if  the  slave  trade  had  never  been  abolished,  for  then 
England  would  have  regulated  the  traffic.  "But  now  we  have 

1  Blackwood^s  Magazine,  Feb..  1848. 

2  Memorial  of  Jamaica  Planters  to  British  Parliament.     See  Blackwood"'s  Maga 
zine,  January  and  February,  1848.  3  Westminster  Review,  Oct.,  1849. 


A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

thrown  it  entirely  into  the  hands  of  the  Spaniards  and  Portu 
guese,  over  whom  we  have  no  sort  of  control,  and  who  exer 
cise  it  in  so  frightful  a  manner  that  the  heart  absolutely 
sickens  at  the  thought  of  the  amount  of  human  suffering  at 
the  cost  of  which  we  have  reduced  the  price  of  sugar  to  six 
pence  a  pound." 

The  repeal  of  discriminating  duties  by  England,  which  sup 
plied  her  people  with  cheaper  sugar  and  coffee,  and  the  enor 
mous  increase  in  the  demand  for  these  articles  everywhere, 
advanced  the  price  of  slaves  in  Cuba  from  $300  to  $500,  and 
stimulated  the  importation  of  Africans  into  that  island  and 
Brazil,  where  the  lash  was  mercilessly  applied  to  wring  from 
their  labor  the  products  which  the  civilized  world  required, 
and  the  wealth  which  made  their  fellow  men  little  better  than 
sordid  and  unfeeling  monsters.  In  Cuba  slaves  worked  under 
the  whip  eighteen  hours  a  day,  and  the  six  hours  during  which 
they  rested  "they  spent  locked  in  a  barracoon — a  strong,  foul, 
close  sty,  where  they  wallowed  without  distinction  of  age  or 
sex."2 

If  England  looked  to  Brazil  for  her  coffee,  and  to  Cuba  to 
make  up  any'  deficiency  in  her  sugar  supply,  she  was  now 
almost  wholly  dependent  upon  the  United  States  for  her  cot 
ton,  the  manufacture  of  which  had  become  an  enormous  in 
dustry.  In  1820  the  United  States  exported  127,800,000 
pounds  of  cotton  to  Europe,  of  which  England  consumed 
1 20, 265,000  pounds,  while  she  imported  in  addition  from  India, 
Brazil  and  other  countries  98,500,000  pounds.  Twenty  years 
later  the  United  States  shipped  to  Europe  743,941,061  pounds, 
of  which  England  consumed  517,254,400  pounds.  In  1849  our 

1  The  whole  amount  of  sugar  consumed  in  England  in  1848  was  692,256,320 
pounds,  most  of  which  was  received  from  the  West  Indies  and  India.  The 
amount  produced  by  slave  labor,  according  to  one  authority,  was  150,000,000 
pounds  ;  according  to  the  London  Quarterly  it  was  229,748,096.  Professor  Han 
cock,  in  a  paper  read  before  the  British  Association  in  1852,  dissented  from  the 
pessimistic  view  taken  by  the  press  regarding  the  future  of  sugar  culture  in  the 
colonies.  He  cited  the  latest  returns  (1851)  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  which  showed 
that  the  importation  of  free  sugar  was  increasing. 

9  Letter  to  Lord  John  Russell,  Blackivood,  Feb.,  1848. 


Pervasive  Influence  of  Slavery  143 

exports  reached  1,026,602,269  pounds,  but  in  1850  fell  back 
to  635,381,604  pounds.  In  1852  we  exported  1,093,230,639 
pounds,  of  which  England  consumed  817,998,048  pounds. 
There  had  thus  been  established  between  the  two  countries 
the  closest  trade  relations.  Vast  populations  were  dependent 
upon  the  continuance  of  these  relations,  and  it  was  confidently 
believed  at  this  period  that  any  disturbance  of  them  would  re 
sult  disastrously.1  While  we  were  shipping  abroad  over  one 
hundred  million  dollars'  worth  of  raw  cotton,  we  were  retain 
ing  more  than  half  as  much  for  home  consumption.  Thus 
were  placed  the  business  interests  of  our  own  people  and  the 
internal  peace  of  every  manufacturing  country  of  Europe 
within  the  power  of  an  oligarchy  of  planters.2  Thus  emphati 
cally  was  cotton  king. 

The  inconsistency  involved  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  comforts 
and  the  luxuries  produced  by  slave  labor  while  condemning 
slaveholding  as  a  malum  in  se  did  not  escape  notice.  If 
Western  civilization  involves  the  destruction  of  all  forms  of 
slavery  and  the  spiritual  development  of  the  individual,  it 
creates  also  new  obligations.  The  recognition  of  these  by  the 
religious  classes  in  the  period  under  review  led  to  the  forma 
tion  in  England  and  America  of  societies  pledged  to  the  use 
of  free-labor  products  only.  In  this  country  Friends  took  the 
initiative  and  spent  vast  sums  in  the  promotion  of  the  manu 
facture  of  free-labor  cotton,  which  was  purchased  in  the  South 
by  agents  sent  thither  for  that  purpose.3  The  manufactured 

"  The  lives  of  nearly  two  millions  of  our  countrymen  are  dependent  upon  the 
cotton  crops  of  America  ;  their  destiny  may  be  said,  without  any  kind  of  hyper 
bole,  to  hang  upon  a  thread.  Should  any  dire  calamity  befall  the  land  of  cotton, 
a  thousand  of  our  merchant  ships  would  rot  idly  in  dock  ;  ten  thousand  mills  must 
stop  their  busy  looms  ;  two  thousand  thousand  mouths  would  starve  for  lack  of 
food  to  feed  them." — London  Economist. 

The  reader  will  find  in  the  above  the  key  to  the  unfriendly  attitude  of  the 
British  government  during  our  Civil  War,  and  to  the  confidence  of  the  confeder 
ate  government  in  foreign  intervention.  *Biackivood''s  Magazine,  January,  1853. 

3  Levi  Coffin,  of  Cincinnati,  and  Nathan  Thomas,  of  New  Garden,  Ind.,  were 
well-known  agents  for  the  West.  Mr.  Thomas  travelled  through  the  South  with 
out  being  molested,  though  he  was  occasionally  moved  by  the  spirit  to  bear 
testimony  to  the  truth. 


144  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

goods  were  disposed  of  in  the  same  way,  and  members  of  the 
society  were  expected  to  prove  their  faith  by  their  works. 
This  movement  amounted  to  little  else  than  to  create  a  new 
penance  for  those  who  were  constrained  to  wear  the  exces 
sively  homely  fabrics  which  the  manufacturers  put  on  the 
market.  It  made  no  impression  upon  the  system.  It  did  not 
reduce  the  number  of  slaves  nor  lighten  their  burdens.  It 
convicted  society  of  complicity  in  the  system,  but  was  im 
potent  for  reform.  A  few  altruists  had  set  an  example  before 
the  world  which  men  were  not  prepared  to  follow. 

The  general  prosperity  rendered  the  people  of  the  country 
impatient  of  any  interruptions  in  money-making  and  ill  dis 
posed  to  a  renewal  of  sectional  controversy.  They  affected 
at  least  to  believe  that  the  Compromise  was  a  final  settlement 
of  the  questions  which  had  unhappily  divided  the  people  of 
the  States  and  they  gave  no  countenance  to  any  who  showed 
a  disposition  to  disturb  it.  In  the  South,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  disunionists  were  defeated.  In  the  North  the  Democratic 
party  \vas  being  rapidly  brought  under  discipline,  and  against 
all  who  believed  with  Mr.  Chase  that  the  opposing  factions 
might  stand  upon  a  platform  which  should  leave  all  matters 
of  difference  open  to  discussion  without  prejudice  to  either 
side,3  the  door  was  closed.  In  New  York  there  was  speedy 
unification  of  Hunkers  and  Barnburners  (terms  which  gave 
place  to  Hards  and  Softs  2)  in  support  of  whatever  the  South 
ern  leaders  required.  The  Softs  outnumbered  the  Hards,  and 

1  Letter  from  Senator  Chase  to  B.  F.  Butler,  July  15,  1852. 

2  The  new  classification  of  New  York  Democrats  originated  in  the  efforts  to  re 
unite  the  Hunkers  and  Free  Soilers  in  1849-50.     John  V.  L.  Pruyn,  chairman  of 
the  Hunker  State  Committee,  conceded  that  the  Wilmot  Proviso  ought  not  to  be 
made  a  test  of  Democratic  faith  and  duty.     For  this  he  was  called  a  "  Soft."     Mr. 
Dickinson  protested  against  the  concession  and  was  called  a  "  Hard."     But  Mr. 
Marcy   and  others  supported    Mr.   Pruyn,    thus  creating  a  division   among   the 
Hunkers  which  strengthened  the  Barnburners.     Thus  out  of  this  division  originated 
the  terms  "Soft-shell"  and  "Hard-shell";  the  former  indicating  a  yielding,  a 
softening  of  Hunker  national  principle,  the  latter  firmness  and  adherence  to  a  pro- 
slavery  policy.     The  Soft-shells  and  Barnburners  fused  and  all  became  Soft-shell 
Democrats.     See  a  pamphlet  published  in  1856,  containing  many  details  of  these 
political  transformations. 


The  Compromise  as  a  Finality  145 

in  the  division  of  the  spoils  secured  the  lion's  share,  but 
consistency  could  be  applied  only  to  the  course  of  the 
Hards.  In  Wisconsin  and  Ohio  there  was  some  pretence  of 
standing  by  the  principles  of  1848,  but  an  irresistible  influ 
ence  was  found  under  a  national  Democratic  administration, 
as  will  be  seen  farther  on,  to  change  Free  Democrats  into 
Hunkers. 

The  Whig  party  was  differently  constituted.  In  its  ranks 
an  independent  spirit  was  prevalent,  which  rendered  strict 
party  discipline  impracticable  and  which  demanded  a  liberal 
toleration  of  differences  of  opinion.  In  Massachusetts,  New 
York  and  Ohio  a  conflict  was  waged  between  the  supporters 
and  the  opponents  of  the  administration  that  threatened  to 
render  impossible  future  cooperation.  The  bitterness  of  this 
family  quarrel  was  intensified  by  events  that  grew  out  of  the 
execution  of  the  new  fugitive  slave  law.  Numerous  arrests 
were  made  in  these  three  representative  States,  apparently  for 
the  purpose  of  testing  the  temper  of  the  people.  If  fugitives 
could  be  reclaimed  in  those  communities,  the  friends  of  the 
Compromise  would  be  vindicated ;  if  not,  that  fact  would  be 
their  undoing.  Circumstances  had  made  this  an  administra 
tion  measure,  and  all,  from  the  President  down  to  the  deputy 
marshals,  were  deeply  concerned  in  its  execution.  Hence 
when  it  was  openly  declared  in  those  States  that  the  law 
should  not  be  carried  into  effect,  collision  became  inevitable. 
A  law  for  the  rendition  of  fugitives  was  one  of  the  compacts 
of  the  Constitution  binding  the  thirteen  Colonies  into  a  Union. 
This  was  the  stipulation  of  a  part  in  which  the  others  acqui 
esced.  Was  nothing  yielded  by  the  South  to  the  North? 
The  latter  had  a  peculiar  interest — commerce — to  be  regarded 
and  protected.  The  South  agreed  to  form  a  government  that 
should  regulate  commerce  according  to  the  wants  and  wishes 
of  the  Northern  States,  and  when  the  Constitution  went  into 
operation,  a  commercial  system,  with  protection  by  way  of 
tonnage  duties,  was  established  which  was  the  foundation  of 
the  glory  and  prosperity  of  the  free  States.1  The  South  had 

'Speech  of  Daniel  Webster  at  Albany,  May  28,  1851. 

VOL.  I. — 10. 


146  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

acted  fairly,  generously.  Would  the  North  fulfil  its  part  of 
the  compact  as  well? 

In  February,  Frederick  Jenkins,  or  Shadrack,  a  colored  la 
borer,  was  seized  in  Boston  and  taken  before  a  United  States 
commissioner,  who  directed  him  to  be  held  until  an  exami 
nation  could  be  had.  While  the  lawyers  were  in  consultation 
a  crowd  of  colored  people  collected  and  rescued  the  prisoner. 
Two  huge  negroes  seized  him  and  hurried  him  through  the 
square  into  Court  Street,  "where  he  found  the  use  of  his  feet, 
and  they  went  off  toward  Cambridge,  like  a  black  squall,  the 
crowd  driving  along  with  them  and  cheering  as  they  went.  It 
was  all  done  in  an  instant,  too  quick  to  be  believed,  and  so 
successful  was  it  that  not  only  was  no  negro  arrested,  but  no 
attempt  was  made  at  pursuit."  The  President  issued  a  pro 
clamation  commanding  all  public  officers  and  calling  on  all 
citizens  to  aid  in  quelling  this  and  similar  combinations,  and 
to  assist  in  capturing  the  rescuers,2  in  which  the  armed  forces 
of  the  government  were  directed  to  take  part.  Soon  after 
wards  a  Georgia  claimant  caused  the  arrest  in  Boston  of  a 
colored  man  named  Thos.  H.  Sims,  who  was  taken  before 
Commissioner  Curtis,  as  in  the  Shadrack  case,  but  more  se 
curely  guarded.  Although  he  was  defended  by  Mr.  Dana, 
Mr.  Loring  and  other  able  lawyers,  he  was  remanded;  and  im 
mediately  he  was  marched  to  the  Long  Wharf  in  a  hollow 
square  of  three  hundred  policemen  and  placed  on  board  a  ves 
sel  for  the  South.  There  had  been  a  display  of  military  force, 
and  of  a  determination  on  the  part  of  the  government  to  en 
force  the  law  at  all  hazards.3  The  application  made  to  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  State  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was 
peremptorily  refused. 

Soon  after  these  events  a  demonstration  was  made  by  the 

1  Biography  of  Richard  Henry  Dana,  p.  182. 

2  Several  were  tried,  but  the  juries  disagreed  or  acquitted. 

3  The  United  States  marshal  at  this  time  was  Charles  Devens,  who  was  after 
wards  Attorney-General  in  the  administration  of    President    Hayes.     He   made 
ineffectual  attempts  to  buy  the  freedom  of  Sims.     The  Rebellion  freed  the  latter, 
who  then  returned  to  Boston.     In  1877  he  was  made  a  messenger  in  the  Depart 
ment  of  Justice. — Biog,  of  R.  H.  Dana,  p.  194. 


Fugitive  Slave  Cases  147 

administration  to  impress  the  public  mind.  Mr.  Webster 
journeyed  from  Buffalo  to  New  York  and,  upon  invitation  of 
the  citizens  of  Albany,  he  addressed  the  young  men  of  that 
city  on  May  28th,  and  in  the  evening  was  entertained  at  a 
banquet.  The  burning  questions  of  the  hour  constituted  the 
topics  of  his  speeches.  He  denounced  the  rescue  of  Shadrack 
as  an  act  of  clear  treason,  and  laid  down  this  broad  proposi 
tion,  which  is  equally  applicable  to  the  social  disturbances  of 
to-day : 

It  was  treason  and  nothing  less;  that  is  to  say,  if  men  get  to 
gether,  and  combine  together,  and  resolve  that  they  will  oppose  a 
law  of  the  government,  not  in  any  one  case  but  in  all  cases;  I  say, 
if  they  resolve  to  resist  the  law,  whoever  may  be  attempted  to  be 
made  the  subject  of  it,  and  carry  that  purpose  into  effect,  by  resisting 
the  application  of  the  law  in  any  one  case,  either  by  force  of  arms 
or  force  of  numbers,  that,  Sir,  is  treason. 

In  the  faithful  execution  of  the  law  lay  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Constitution.  Could  it  be  maintained  in  part  and  not  in 
whole?  Clearly  not.1 

Well-known  citizens  occasionally  aided  in  rescues,  and 
everywhere  a  repugnance  was  manifested  that  augured  ill  for 
the  fulfilment  of  the  promises  of  those  who  had  promoted  this 
legislation.  At  Syracuse,  Gerrit  Smith  and  the  Rev.  Samuel 
May  were  members  of  a  mob  that  broke  down  the  doors  of  a 
courtroom  and  rescued  Jerry  McHenry,  a  colored  man  who 
had  been  condemned  to  slavery  by  a  commissioner,  and  who 
had  made  a  brave  but  ineffectual  rush  for  liberty.  Eighteen 
citizens  were  indicted  and  summoned  to  appear  at  Auburn, 
where  bail  was  accepted  for  their  future  appearance.  The 
name  of  Senator  Seward  headed  the  list  of  sureties.  Such 
was  the  sentiment  in  this  community  that  prosecutions  were 
unavailing. 

At  Christiana,  Pennsylvania,  Edward  Gorsuch,  a  Maryland 
slaveowner,  attempted  to  arrest  two  negroes.  They  were  de 
fended  by  a  party  of  free  negroes,  who  fired  upon  the  posse, 

1  Speech  of  Daniel  Webster  to  the  young  men  of  Albany,  May  28,  1851. 


148  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

killing  Mr.  Gorsuch  and  seriously  wounding  his  son.  The 
alleged  fugitives  escaped.  Subsequently  the  United  States 
marshal,  accompanied  by  Commissioner  Ingraham  of  Phila 
delphia,  the  United  States  attorney  and  forty-five  marines 
and  a  civil  posse  of  fifty  men,  made  twenty-four  arrests  —  two 
whites  and  twenty-two  colored.1  The  whites  were  Friends 
who  endeavored  to  preserve  the  peace,  and  when  brought  to 
trial  for  treason  before  Justice  Grier,  they  were  acquitted  by 
the  jury  under  the  charge  of  the  court.  The  other  prisoners 
were  never  tried. 

There  were  numerous  kidnapping  cases,  and  others  where 
brutal  violence  was  used.  Daniel,  a  cook  on  a  steamboat  at 
Buffalo,  who  was  claimed  by  Geo.  H.  Moore,  of  Louisville, 
was  struck  on  the  head  with  a  billet  of  wood,  knocked  sense 
less,  and  in  that  condition  dragged  before  a  commissioner, 
who,  notwithstanding  it  was  proved  that  the  prisoner  had 
been  sent  into  Ohio  by  his  master,  and  therefore  had  not 
escaped  from  Kentucky,  remanded  him  to  slavery.2 

The  effect  of  such  seizures  was  different  from  what  had  been 
anticipated.  Those  who  were  permitted  to  see  the  practical 
workings  of  the  law  were  impelled  to  hold  it  in  deeper  and 
deeper  abhorrence.  Rutherford  B.  Hayes  expressed  the  gen 
eral  sentiment  when  he  said  that  a  law  making  the  escape 
from  bondage  a  crime,  and  compelling  citizens  under  rigorous 
penalties  to  aid  in  the  capture  of  slaves,  was  suited  to  bar 
barians,  not  to  a  Christian  people.  The  most  enlightened  and 
cultivated  were  the  most  active  opponents.  They  did  not 
rely  wholly  upon  a  "higher  law"  to  justify  their  acts,  but 
upon  the  repugnance  of  the  law  to  the  Constitution,  whereof 
each  one  judged  for  himself.  The  statement  of  President 
Jackson  in  the  famous  Bank  veto — that  each  public  officer 
who  takes  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  swears  that  he 
will  support  it  as  he  understands  it,  and  not  as  it  is  understood 
by  others — was  quoted  in  justification.  The  arguments  of 
Horace  Mann  and  Senators  Chase  and  Sumner  on  this  point 

1  New  York  Tribune,  September  15,  1851. 
5  New  York  Tribune,  June  30,  1851. 


The  Invasion  of  Cuba  149 

gave  great  satisfaction.1  That  all  courts  had  maintained  the 
constitutionality  of  the  law  did  not  impress  this  class  of  dissi 
dents.  But  the  question  involved  the  very  basis  of  social 
order — the  supremacy  of  law,  which  confronts  every  com 
munity  and  applies  to  every  age.  Disregard  for  law  invites 
anarchy,  and  anarchy  leads  to  the  abandonment  of  civilization. 
In  all  matters  affecting  society,  the  law  and  not  conscience 
constitutes  the  rule  of  action.2 

In  his  message,  December  2d,  President  Fillmore  congratu 
lated  the  country  upon  the  general  acquiescence  in  the  com 
promise  measures  which  had  been  exhibited  in  all  parts  of  the 
Republic.  The  spirit  of  conciliation  manifested  everywhere 
had  removed  doubts  concerning  the  durability  of  the  Union. 
Some  objections  had  been  urged  against  the  details  of  the  act 
for  the  return  of  fugitives  from  labor,  but  it  was  worthy  of  re 
mark  that  the  main  opposition  was  aimed  against  the  Constitu 
tion  itself,  and  proceeded  from  persons  and  classes  of  persons, 
many  of  whom  declared  their  wish  to  see  that  Constitution 
overturned.  This  was  a  severe  reflection  on  many  of  the 
President's  former  political  associates  and  friends.  ''The 
President  deceives  himself,"  said  Mr.  Greeley,  "if  he  supposes 
that  the  spirit  of  opposition  to  this  law  is  diminishing.  If  the 
slave-catchers  will  allow  it  to  fall  into  disuse,  there  can  be  little 
difficulty  in  retaining  it  on  the  statute  books." 

Another  subject  closely  allied  to  the  sectional  controversy 
received  greater  attention  in  the  message — the  invasion  of 
Cuba.  The  successful  dismemberment  of  Mexico  by  force 
logically  led  to  the  projection  of  schemes  for  the  seizure  of 
Cuba.  The  failure  of  a  previous  expedition  did  not  lessen  the 
ardor  of  the  "manifest  destiny"  men,  or  of  the  Southern 
radicals  who  looked  upon  the  acquisition  of  that  island  as 

1  Argument  as  to  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  law  will  be  found  in  a  letter 
from  S.  P.  Chase  to  A.  P.  Edgerton  (pamphlet),  p.  n. 

2  See   opinion  of  Justice  McLean  in  the  South  Bend  rescue  case.     This    dis 
tinguished  jurist  not  only  dissented  from  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the 
Prigg  case,  but  thought  the  fugitive  slave  act  of  1850  injudicious.     But  he  sustained 
the  law  with  official  fidelity. 

3  New  York  Tribune,  Dec.  4,  1851. 


150  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

necessary  to  complete  their  plan  for  a  great  Southern  repub 
lic.  The  bold  talk  of  the  radicals  and  the  friendly  attitude  of 
many  connected  with  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
encouraged  reckless  adventurers  to  embark  in  an  enterprise 
that  promised  excitement  and  liberal  rewards.  It  was  repre 
sented  that  the  Creole  population  of  the  island  were  ready  to 
rise  against  the  Spanish  government  and  join  any  armed  force 
that  might  effect  a  landing.  It  was  reported  that  the  expe 
dition,  which  was  to  be  composed  of  six  thousand  men,  was  to 
be  led  by  General  Quitman  of  Mississippi,  and  was  to  embark 
from  New  Orleans  about  the  loth  of  June.1  The  real  leader 
was  that  General  Marisco  Lopez,  a  Spaniard,  who  had  made  a 
former  attempt  to  capture  the  island,  and  who,  although  ar 
rested  at  Key  West  at  the  instance  of  the  Spanish  vice-con 
sul,  was  discharged  by  the  district  judge  to  enter  upon  a  new 
enterprise.  Instead  of  an  army  of  six  thousand,  less  than 
five  hundred  adventurers,  mostly  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
made  up  Lopez's  command.  The  steamer  Pampero,  in  which 
they  embarked,  left  New  Orleans  stealthily  without  a  clear 
ance,  early  in  the  morning  of  the  3d  of  August. 

On  the  night  of  the  nth  they  landed  on  the  coast  within 
about  twenty  leagues  of  Havana.  The  main  body  under 
Lopez  marched  inland,  leaving  one  hundred  and  thirty  men 
under  young  Crittenden,  a  son  of  the  Attorney-General  of  the 
United  States,  to  follow  in  charge  of  the  baggage,  as  soon  as 
the  means  of  transportation  could  be  obtained.  These  were 
attacked  on  their  march  to  join  Lopez  by  a  body  of  Spanish 
troops,  and  a  bloody  conflict  ensued ;  after  which  they  re 
treated  to  the  place  of  disembarkation,  where  about  fifty  of 
them  obtained  boats  and  put  out  to  sea.  They  were  captured 

1  Letter  of  Amos  Kendall  to  John  J.  Crittenden,  Attorney-General,  dated 
Louisville,  Ky.,  May  30,  1851.  MS.  That  a  son  of  Mr.  Crittenden  should  be  a 
member  of  Lopez's  band  of  filibusters,  excited  general  regret  and  sympathy.  His 
tragical  death  cast  an  air  of  romance  over  the  ill-fated  expedition.  A  few 
minutes  before  his  execution  he  vindicated  his  motive  in  these  lines,  indited  to  a 
friend:  "I  did  not  come  here  to  plunder:  I  came  here  in  good  faith  to  aid  this 
people  in  acquiring  freedom  ;  I  supposed  they  were  thirsting  for  liberty,  but  I 
have  been  deceived." 


The  Invasion  of  Cuba  151 

by  the  Spanish  frigate  Espcranza,  cruising  near  the  coast,  car 
ried  to  Havana,  and,  after  being  examined  before  a  military 
court,  were  sentenced  to  be  publicly  executed  on  the  i6th. 
The  order  of  the  court  was  carried  into  effect  with  exhibitions 
of  brutality  which  Crittenden  and  his  companions  bore  with 
dignity  and  courage.  After  death  the  bodies  were  "muti 
lated,  dragged  by  the  heels,  and  outraged  in  a  most  savage 
manner.  Ears,  fingers,  pieces  of  skull,  were  brought  away 
for  exhibition,  and  nailed  or  hung  up  in  public  places." 
The  main  body  of  the  invaders  was  defeated  by  Spanish 
troops,  and  subsequently  captured  and  transported  to  Spain. 
Lopez,  with  a  few  companions,  fled  to  the  mountains,  where 
he  was  speedily  hunted  down,  and  on  the  ist  of  September 
was  garroted  in  Havana. 

The  executions  in  Cuba  were  followed  by  rioting  in  New 
Orleans,  where  the  office  of  the  Spanish  consul  was  invaded, 
his  property  destroyed,  the  Spanish  flag  found  in  his  office 
torn  in  pieces,  and  he  constrained  to  flee  for  his  personal 
safety.  The  President  acted  promptly,  as  became  the  head 
of  a  friendly  government,  and  by  this  means  was  enabled  to 
interpose  for  the  release  of  the  misguided  men  in  Spanish 
prisons.  But  this  filibustering  incident  afforded  an  oppor 
tunity  for  the  governments  of  Great  Britain  and  France  to 
broach  the  policy  of  interference  in  American  affairs.  They 
issued  orders  to  their  naval  commanders  on  the  West  Indian 
station  to  prevent,  by  force,  if  necessary,  the  landing  of  ad 
venturers  from  any  nation  on  the  island  of  Cuba  with  hostile 
intent.  Our  government,  through  the  Department  of  State, 
promptly  protested  that  such  action,  establishing  as  it  did  a 
sort  of  protectorate,  if  attempted  in  the  only  practical  mode 
for  its  effectual  execution,  could  not  fail  to  produce  irritation, 
if  not  worse  consequences.  "All  experience  seems  to  prove," 
— said  Mr.  Crittenden,  acting  Secretary  of  State  during 
Mr.  Webster's  absence,  addressing  M.  de  Sartiges,  French 
minister, — "All  experience  seems  to  prove  that  the  rights, 

1  Letter  of  William  May,  of  the  U.  S.  steam  frigate  Saranac,  to  his  brother, 
Dr.  Frederick  May,  of  Washington,  Sept.  16,  1851.  MS. 


152  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

interests  and  peace  of  the  continents  of  Europe  and  America 
will  be  best  preserved  by  the  forbearance  of  each  to  interfere 
in  the  affairs  of  the  other."  The  President  assured  Congress 
that  the  principle  in  such  matters  which  had  originated  with 
the  first  administration  would  be  maintained  under  all  circum 
stances  and  at  all  hazards — the  inviolability  of  the  American 
flag  and  the  protection  of  all  covered  by  it.  Both  the  British 
and  French  governments  hastened  to  disclaim  any  purpose  to 
interfere  with  lawful  commerce  or  to  commit  any  act  of  hos 
tility  upon  any  vessel  under  the  protection  of  the  American 
flag.1  The  determination  of  the  American  government  not  to 
permit  Cuba  to  be  transferred  by  Spain  to  any  other  European 
Power  was  reaffirmed  in  the  letter  to  M.  de  Sartiges,  but  it 
refused  to  disclaim  any  purpose  of  annexing  the  island  to  the 
United  States.  The  upshot  of  this  diplomatic  fencing  is  suc 
cinctly  stated  in  a  passage  in  Lord  Malmesbury's  diary: 

Conversation  with  Walewski  about  Cuba  and  American  disclosures 
thereon.  In  1849  they  offered  $100,000,000  for  it  to  Spain.  We 
and  France  have  offered  to  renounce  our  possession  of  Cuba  for 
ever  if  the  United  States  will  agree  to  do  likewise.  As  yet  they 
refuse.2 

The  attention  of  members  of  Congress  during  the  long 
session  of  1851-2  was  divided  between  the  reception  of  Kos- 
suth,  the  coup  d ' e'tat  of  Louis  Napoleon  and  president-making. 
The  future  course  of  the  two  great  parties  was  foreshadowed 
in  the  House  caucuses  preliminary  to  organization.  The 
Whigs,  in  a  minority,  could  unite  neither  on  a  policy  nor  a 
candidate  for  Speaker.  Resolutions  endorsing  the  compro 
mise  measures,  and  making  their  support  binding  upon  the 
party,  were  adopted  in  a  caucus  constituted  of  Southern  Whigs 
and  half  a  dozen  Silver  Grays  of  the  North.  The  Democratic 
caucus  was  well  attended  by  members  representing  every 
shade  of  opinion,  who  voted  to  lay  on  the  table  a  resolution 
approving  of  the  compromise  measures  as  a  final  settlement 

1  Message  of  Dec.  2,  1851. 

2  Memoirs  of  an  ex-Minister,  Dec.  14,  1852,  p.  286. 


Irresolution  of  Whigs  153 

of  the  slavery  question.  This  meant  that  there  was  to  be  no 
discussion  until  after  the  House  should  be  organized.  Linn 
Boyd  of  Kentucky,  who  had  refused  to  sign  the  Calhoun 
address  to  the  South,  some  years  before,  was  elected  Speaker. 
Having  now  the  organization  of  one  branch  of  the  govern 
ment,  the  Democrats  used  its  power  to  effect  the  unification 
of  the  party  for  the  presidential  campaign. 

Irresolution  and  dissension  characterized  the  course  of  the 
Whig  leaders.  As  the  winter  was  passing  many  anti-compro 
misers  began  to  show  signs  of  yielding  to  the  administration 
arguments.  To  check  this,  and  to  suggest  a  basis  for  unity, 
Mr.  Greeley  announced  that  the  North  would  not  ask  the 
national  convention  to  touch  on  the  question  of  slavery. 
Differences  of  opinion  ought  to  be  respected  by  ignoring  the 
subject.  If  it  should  be  thrust  into  the  platform,  then  other 
subjects — public  lands  free  for  actual  settlers,  sympathy  with 
the  oppressed  millions  of  Europe — would  also  engage  attention. 
Resolving  that  the  fugitive  slave  law  was  right  would  not 
make  a  single  opponent  respect  it.1  This  reasonable  proposi 
tion  did  not  meet  with  favor  either  in  administration  circles  or 
with  Southern  Whigs  who  were  cooperating  with  Union 
Democrats.  The  President  and  the  Secretary  of  State  were 
too  deeply  compromised  for  them  to  consent  to  a  policy  of 
silence,  while  many  Whigs  in  the  South  believed  that  their 
political  future  depended  upon  an  endorsement  of  the  Com 
promise  as  a  finality.  Hence  in  the  debates  in  Congress  on 
the  subject,  the  Southern  Whig  leaders  declared  that  if  their 
Northern  brethren  refused  to  go  this  length  in  political  action 
they  would  be  compelled  to  dissolve  their  party  association 
with  them  and  seek  new  ties.  This  threat  a  few  leaders  put 
into  effect  later,  as  will  be  seen  below. 

Early  in  April  the  Whig  members  of  Congress  met  in  caucus 
to  determine  the  time  and  place  for  holding  the  national  con 
vention.  Senator  Mangum,  of  North  Carolina,  presided.  Mr. 
Stanly  of  the  same  State  offered  a  resolution  proposing  that 
the  convention  should  assemble  on  the  i6th  day  of  June  in  the 

'New  York  Tribune,  March  15,  1852,  editorial,  A  Talk  with  Southern  Whigs. 


154  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

city  of  Baltimore.  Humphrey  Marshall,  of  Kentucky,  moved 
as  a  substitute  a  resolution  pledging  approval  of  the  compro 
mise  measures,  which  precipitated  a  debate  that  continued 
until  a  late  hour.  Without  action  the  caucus  adjourned  until 
the  2Oth.  At  the  second  meeting  the  chairman  ruled  that  the 
substitute  was  out  of  order,  and  the  decision  was  sustained  by 
a  vote  of  46  to  21.  The  chairman  also  ruled  out  of  order  an 
other  resolution  offered  by  Gentry  of  Tennessee,  which  de 
clared  that  the  members  of  the  caucus  would  not  be  bound 
to  support  the  nominees  of  the  national  convention,  unless 
such  nominees  publicly  pledged  themselves  to  accept  the 
Compromise  as  a  final  settlement  of  the  sectional  controversy. 
Thereupon  Mr.  Gentry  and  several  others  withdrew  and  sub 
sequently  published  a  card  defending  their  course.1  The  ex 
citement  created  by  this  schism  led  to  a  discussion  in  the 
House  the  following  day,  during  which  the  views  of  both  fac 
tions  were  freely  expressed.  These  made  it  clear  that  in  the 
Whig  party  there  was  an  anti-slavery  wing  and  a  pro-slavery 
wing,  which  were  in  accord  on  every  question  of  public  policy 
except  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  that  unless  they  agreed  to 
disagree  on  that,  as  the  New  York  Tribune  had  often  urged, 
the  party  must  go  to  pieces.  The  North  would  not  consent 
to  any  new  test  of  political  orthodoxy. 

If  we  are  to  exist  as  a  party  [said  Washburn  of  Maine]  it  must 
be  upon  a  platform  on  which  men  of  all  sections  of  the  country  can 
stand  together,  without  the  sacrifice  of  opinion,  of  principle  or  of 
honor;  and  not  upon  one  which  may  well  hold  men  of  all  parties  in 
one  section,  and  exclude  all  in  another.2 

But  the  paramount  question  in  the  South — the  question 
which  that  section  would  insist  should  control  any  administra 
tion — was  the  slavery  question.  In  a  word,  the  nationalizing 

1  They  declared  that  they  would  not  support  any  candidate  who  was  not  known 
to  be  in  favor  of  the  Compromise  as  a  finality.     The  proper  place  for  a  discussion 
of  this  kind  was  in  a  meeting  or  convention  called  to  consider  men  and  measures, 
not  in  a  caucus  called  for  a  different  purpose. 

2  Cong.  Globe,  First  Session,  32d  Congress,  p.  1158. 


The  Young  Democracy  155 

of  the  institution  was  a  distinct,  a  vital,  a  living  policy.1  To 
its  promotion  the  energies  of  one  party  were  now  mainly 
directed.  The  effort  of  a  faction  to  make  it  the  controlling 
principle  of  the  other  party  worked  the  destruction  of  that 
party. 

The  younger  element  in  the  Democratic  party  casting  about 
for  means  to  retire  Cass,  Dickinson,  Buchanan  and  other  old 
leaders,  began  an  agitation  within  the  party,  affirming  the 
necessity  of  getting  away  from  the  conservatism  of  the  past 
and  raising  new  issues  in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  the  age. 
These  new  issues  were  covered  by  the  phrase  manifest  destiny 
of  America.  The  time  was  to  be  hastened  when  our  flag 
should  be  unfurled,  or  even  our  nod,  earth-shaking  as  the  nod 
of  Jove,  should  be  given  for  the  liberation  of  nations.  To 
accomplish  this,  a  new  leader  was  wanted,  a  bold  man  who 
could  stand  the  brunt  of  foreign  war;  a  man  as  astute  and  wise 
as  Cato,  who  could,  by  the  use  of  foreign  material,  save  our 
shores  from  attack,  and  crush  the  despots  of  the  world  in  their 
very  dens.2  This  was  the  bugle-blast  of  Young  America. 
First  the  acquisition  of  Cuba,  and  then  whatever  Viking  blood 
might  covet  or  dare.  The  impatience  of  the  political  ambition 
of  Stephen  A.  Douglas  undoubtedly  suggested  this  new  policy. 
Scarcely  forty  years  of  age,  he  contested  the  leadership  of  the 
Democratic  party  with  Cass,  Dickinson,  Buchanan  and  Marcy. 
He  already  had  a  more  devoted  personal  following  than  any 
of  the  old  leaders,  and  had  the  self-confidence,  tact,  vigor 
and  boldness  which  command  the  admiration  of  men.  The 
policy  of  the  progressive  element,  sneeringly  remarked  an 
anti-Douglas  man,  was  "to  hunt  up  some  imaginary  genius, 
and  place  him  on  a  new  policy,  give  him  Young  America  as  a 
fulcrum,  and  let  him  turn  the  world  upside  down."  3 

In  reply,  a  supporter  of  the  candidacy  of  Mr.  Douglas  said, 

'  See  remarks  of  Alex.  H.  Stephens,  Appendix  Cong.  Globe,  April,  1852. 

*  Democratic  Review,  Jan.,  1852,  which  had  a  slashing  and  vigorously  written 
article,  intended  to  prepare  the  way  for  a  revolution  in  the  Baltimore  convention. 
It  gave  new  life  to  the  quidnuncs,  and  anxious  thoughts  to  old  politicians. 

3  Remarks  of  John  C.  Breckinridge  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  See 
Cong.  Globe,  March,  1852. 


156  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

that  while  the  Illinois  Senator  had  no  intention  of  disturbing 
the  equilibrium  of  the  physical  universe,  he  did  cherish  an 
idea,  however,  that  the  United  States  were  not  absolutely 
finished,  and  ready  to  be  enclosed  and  painted ;  that  this 
country,  great,  rich,  powerful  and  free  as  it  was,  might  be 
come  greater,  richer,  freer  and  more  powerful  with  perfect 
safety  under  the  Constitution.1  And  there  was  much  vague 
language  about  the  "hope  of  freedom,"  "determination  to  re 
sist  oppression,"  "glorious  achievements,"  intended  to  strike 
the  fancy  of  large  classes  of  voters  and  bring  their  enthusiasm 
to  bear  on  the  national  convention.  If  the  "Little  Giant" 
failed  of  the  nomination  at  Baltimore,  he  helped  to  retire  the 
old  leaders,  displayed  splendid  running  qualities,  and  inaugu 
rated  a  new  era  in  the  history  of  his  party. 

The  Democratic  national  convention  met  on  the  first  day 
of  June.  General  Cass,  although  in  his  seventieth  year,  was 
the  most  conspicuous  candidate,  and  Mr.  Buchanan  the  next 
in  apparent  strength.  But  the  latter  was  never  thought  to  be 
a  possibility. 

If  [said  Marshall]  any  part  of  the  Democratic  party  were  trying 
"  to  fight  out  the  trouble  by  attempting  to  mount  up  on  the  prostrate 
bodies  of  all  the  best  men  in  the  party,"  in  such  a  conflict  Mr. 
Buchanan  would  escape,  as  not  being  worth  the  killing.2 

The  able  politicians  from  the  South  who  controlled  this  con 
vention  played  with  the  fortunes  of  the  prominent  candidates, 
who  had  weakened  themselves  at  home  by  excessive  devotion 
to  the  peculiar  institution,  much  as  jockeys  on  the  race  track 
govern  the  speed  of  their  horses  in  obedience  to  secret  instruc 
tions.  They  increased  or  lessened  the  votes  at  will,  taking 
care  that  none  should  receive  a  majority  and  making  it  clear 
that  none  could  command  the  requisite  two-thirds.  On  the 
forty-ninth  and  last  ballot  the  game  was  won  in  the  nomina- 

1  Speech  of  Mr.  Marshall,  of  California,  in  the  House,  March  u,  1852. 

2  Ibid.     In  view  of  the  coming  conflict  in  the  Democratic  party,  it  will  be  well 
to  keep  in  mind  this  biting  remark  of  Mr.  Douglas's  friend. 


The  Young  Democracy  157 

tion  of  Franklin  Pierce,  of  New  Hampshire,  a  new  but  not  an 
unknown  man.1  William  R.  King,  of  Alabama,  was  nomi 
nated  for  Vice-President. 

Thurlow  Weed  expresses  the  opinion  in  his  Autobiography* 
that  Mr.  Marcy  might  have  been  the  nominee  of  this  conven 
tion  if  an  understanding  had  been  had  with  Mr.  Dickinson, 
who  supported  Cass,  and  who  refused  to  allow  his  own  name 
to  be  used  when  Virginia  proposed  it,  and  Mr.  Dickinson  ex 
pressed  the  same  opinion  in  1862;  but  it  is  doubtful.  The 
record  of  Franklin  Pierce  on  the  slavery  question  was  entirely 
satisfactory  to  the  Southern  leaders,3  while  Mr.  Marcy  was  a 
"Soft  "  associated  with  the  Free  Soilers  of  1848,  and  therefore 
he  was  regarded  with  suspicion.  The  New  York  delegation 
stood  Hards,  II;  Softs,  24.  The  twenty-four  votes  were  cast 
for  Marcy  with  faithful  pertinacity.  But  they  accepted  Pierce 
and  the  platform  with  an  ostentatious  show  of  satisfaction.4 
The  Barnburners  had  made  a  complete  surrender  of  principle, 
apparently  without  any  qualms  of  conscience.  '  '  'Conscience ! ' 
said  the  Chancellor;  'conscience  is  a  vague  word,  which  signi 
fies  anything  or  nothing.'  "  5  They  had  made  a  show  of  virtue 
in  defending  the  right  of  a  Democratic  constituency  in  Massa 
chusetts  to  representation  in  the  convention  by  Robert  Ran- 
toul,  Jr.,  who  had  been  regularly  and  legally  chosen,  when  the 
Committee  on  Credentials  recommended  that  his  seat  be  given 
to  one  N.  J.  Lord,  contestant,  who  had  no  constituency.6 
This  ostracism  of  Rantoul,  "who  stood  in  the  very  front  rank 
of  the  great  men  of  the  American  Democracy,"  was  notice  to 

1  On  the  first  ballot  Cass  had  116  votes,  and  on  the  thirty-fifth  131,  his  maximum 
strength.      Buchanan's  greatest    vote,    104,    was   secured  on    the    twenty-second 
ballot.     Douglas's  largest  vote  was  92,  Marcy's  98. 

2  Vol.  ii.,  p.  198. 

3  See  the  National  Era,  June,  1852,  for  Pierce's  pro-slavery  record. 

4  "  Among  the  men  who  joined  in  these  declarations  were  not  a  few  who  had 
supported  Van  Buren  and  Adams  in  the  campaign  of  1848.     One  of  the  prominent 
officers  of  the  convention  was  the  author  of  many  of  the  most  extreme  anti-slavery 
declarations  put  forth  at  Buffalo." — Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  vol.  i.,  p.  100. 

5  Macaulay's  History  of  England,  vol.  vi. 

6  See   Proceedings  Democratic  National  Convention,    1852,   published  in    The 
Campaign,  p.  8. 


158  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

all  that  subserviency  to  the  slave  power  was  to  be  the  test 
thenceforth  of  party  loyalty  and  of  personal  influence. 

The  Whigs  failed  in  originality,  in  courage.  Their  conven 
tion,  which  met  at  Baltimore  a  fortnight  after  the  Democratic 
convention  had  adjourned,  was  under  a  menace  which  seemed 
to  paralyze  its  action  at  every  stage.  The  Whigs  of  Georgia 
had  instructed  their  delegates  to  use  their  influence  to  secure 
the  adoption  and  recognition  of  the  finality  of  the  compromise 
measures ;  and  failing  to  secure  such  recognition  then  to  retire 
from  the  convention,  and  unite  with  other  Union  delegates  in 
taking  such  action  as  they  might  deem  necessary  for  the  pre 
servation  of  the  Union  and  the  salvation  of  the  Constitution. 
The  convention  weakly  yielded  to  this  intimidation,  so  far  as 
the  platform  was  concerned,  notwithstanding  the  Georgia  policy 
for  two  years  had  meant  the  dissolution  of  the  Whig  party. 

The  extremists  of  the  South  not  only  made  the  platform, 
but  they  selected  a  candidate  whom  they  asked  the  Northern 
States — the  States  whose  electoral  votes  were  necessary  to 
Whig  success — to  support.  They  praised  Webster,  but  they 
gave  their  votes  to  Fillmore,  who  had  been  repudiated  by  his 
own  State.  The  strife  between  the  friends  of  these  two  candi 
dates  continued  for  days  without  bringing  them  together. 
Webster's  twenty-nine  votes  would  have  nominated  Fillmore, 
but  they  were  not  given  because  of  that  statesman's  superior 
claims,  and  because  of  the  insensibility  shown  by  the  South 
to  the  importance  of  his  services  in  securing  the  enactment  of 
the  compromise  measures.1  This  personal  controversy  offered 
an  opportunity  for  the  anti-slavery  Whigs  to  win  by  firmly 
adhering  to  their  candidate  until  a  break  should  come  in  the 
ranks  of  the  opposing  forces.  A  sectional  bargain  was  charged 
by  Henry  J.  Raymond, — the  South  to  have  the  platform  and 
the  North  the  candidate, — but  that  was  vehemently  denied  on 
the  floor  of  the  convention.2  Nor  was  it  necessary  for  either 
side  to  make  such  an  agreement  in  order  to  secure  what  each 

1  Reminiscences  of  James  A,  Hamilton,  p.  404.     Letter  of  Edward  Everett, 
Nov.  10,  1855. 

2  Despatch  of  Henry  J.  Raymond,  editor,  to  the  New  York  Times. 


The  Whig  Surrender  159 

most  prized.  "The  Southern  men  all  demand  a  platform  of 
'finality  '  of  the  Compromise,"  wrote  Mr.  Seward,  June  loth,1 
"and  Northern  men  are  preparing  to  go  for  it  to  avoid  a 
break-up  of  the  convention."  Thus  that  part  was  virtually 
settled  before  the  convention  assembled.  On  the  fifty-third 
ballot  the  break  came  and  General  Scott  was  nominated.  At 
no  time  was  a  single  Southern  vote  cast  for  Daniel  Webster. 
William  A.  Graham,  of  North  Carolina,  Secretary  of  the  Navy 
in  Mr.  Fillmore's  Cabinet,  was  nominated  for  Vice-President. 

In  1846,  General  Taylor  said  that  the  presidency  had  been 
the  first  and  only  consideration  with  General  Scott  for  many 
years.2  There  is  no  doubt  that  he  ardently  desired  to  be 
President.  To  promote  his  candidacy  he  visited  many  cities 
in  1851,  and  was  received  with  respect  and  even  enthusiasm 
as  a  military  hero.  The  South  dictated  the  platform  of  prin 
ciples  for  each  convention.  The  Democratic  reaffirmed  the 
party's  contention  on  every  issue  of  the  past;  endorsed  the 
nullification  doctrine  of  1798;  declared  the  Compromise  to  be 
a  final  settlement,  the  fugitive  slave  law  included,  "which 
act  being  designed  to  carry  out  an  express  provision  of  the 
Constitution,  cannot  with  fidelity  thereto  be  repealed,  or  so 
changed  as  to  destroy  or  impair  its  efficiency"  ;  and  concluded 
with  a  spread-eagle  declaration  for  Young  America,  that  the 
Constitution  was  "broad  enough  and  strong  enough  to  em 
brace  and  uphold  the  Union  as  it  was,  the  Union  as  it  is,  and 
the  Union  as  it  shall  be,  in  the  full  expansion  of  the  energies 
and  capacity  of  this  great  and  progressive  people." 

Every  principle,  every  issue  of  its  history  was  ignored  by 
the  platform  made  for  the  Whigs,  and  in  their  stead  the  one 
overshadowing  question  of  slavery  filled  the  measure  of  the 
builders'  conception  of  what  the  hour  demanded.  It  was  a 
humiliating  confession  of  party  impotence.  It  invited  the 
contempt  of  independent  Whigs  and  the  derision  of  opponents. 
The  purpose  of  all  the  resolutions,  adopted  by  a  majority  of 
the  convention  —  for  there  was  a  stubborn  minority  —  was 

1  Seward  at  Washington^  vol.  ii.,  p.  185. 

2  Letter  of  General  Taylor  to  John  Ewing,  of  Vincennes,  Ind.,  July  3,  1846. 


160  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

expressed  in  the  eighth  and  last,  which  declared  that  the 
compromise  measures  including  the  fugitive  slave  law  "are 
received  and  acquiesced  in  by  the  Whig  party  of  the  United 
States  as  a  settlement,  in  principle  and  in  substance,  of  the 
dangerous  and  exciting  questions  which  they  embrace";  and 
that  this  system  was  essential  to  the  nationality  of  the  Whig 
party  and  the  integrity  of  the  Union.  This  resolution  did 
not  go  to  the  extreme  length  of  the  Democratic  in  declaring 
that  the  fugitive  slave  law  could  not  with  fidelity  to  the 
Constitution  be  repealed,  and  was  therefore  less  effective  as  a 
pacificator. 

The  platform,  Mr.  Seward  said,  was  contrived  to  defeat 
General  Scott  in  the  nomination,  and  it  deprived  him  of  the 
vantage  of  position  he  enjoyed.  "Even  those  who  gave  way 
feel  and  deplore  this,  while  all  our  enemies,  in  and  out  of  the 
party,  proclaim  it  with  exultation.  I  see  now  no  safe  way 
through,  but  anticipate  defeat  and  desertion  in  any  event." 

Hopelessly  divided  on  questions  of  principle,  the  Whig  party 
went  down  to  defeat.  There  was  bad  faith  on  every  hand. 
The  very  men — Stephens,  Toombs,  Gentry  and  others — who 
had  made  a  finality  platform  a  sine  qua  non  to  their  participa 
tion  in  the  national  convention  and  support  of  the  nominee, 
early  announced  that  they  could  not  support  General  Scott 
because  he  was  the  candidate  of  Seward  and  Greeley — a  fact 
as  well  known  before  as  after  the  convention.  Webster  elec 
toral  tickets  were  set  up  in  several  States  under  cover  of  which 
recalcitrant  Whigs  rendered  aid  to  the  Democrats.2  Adminis 
tration  appointees  in  many  places  were  reported  to  be  openly 
working  for  Pierce.  These  influences  were  sufficient  —  it 

1  Seward  at  Washington^  vol.  ii.,  p.  187. 

2  The  scattering  votes  were  :  Daniel  Webster  (Union  Whig)  received  2124  votes 
in  the  free  States,   and   5302  in   the   slave    States  ;    George    M.    Troup   (States 
Rights),   2300  votes  in  Georgia  and  Alabama  ;    William  Goodell  (Abolition),  72 
votes  in  New  York,  and  Jacob  Broome  (Native  American),  2485  votes  in  Penn 
sylvania  and  New  Jersey.     John  P.  Hale,  candidate  of  the  Free  Democracy,  re 
ceived  156,149  votes.     The  Native  American  party  put  in  nomination  candidates 
in  the  2oth  and  22d  Congress  districts  of  Pennsylvania — an  example  widely  fol 
lowed  two  years  later  with  surprising  results. 


The  Whig  Surrender  161 

needed  no  charges  of  Free  Soilism  and  Nativism  against 
General  Scott — to  create  a  feeling  of  coldness  and  indifference 
throughout  the  country  and  presage  defeat.  Vermont,  Mas 
sachusetts,  Kentucky  and  Tennessee,  casting  in  all  forty-two 
electoral  votes,  were  the  only  States  that  voted  for  the  Whig 
candidates.  All  of  the  other  States,  casting  two  hundred  and 
fifty-four  votes,  voted  for  Pierce  and  King.  But  the  popular 
vote  did  not  show  a  corresponding  difference — a  fact  that  it  is 
interesting  to  note. 

The  protection  of  home  industry  [the  New  York  Tribune  de 
clared  March  4th,  1852]  as  an  avowed,  conspicuous,  leading  feature 
of  our  national  policy  is  crushed — probably  for  years,  possibly  for 
ever.  And  as  to  the  slave  propaganda,  it  has  now  full  swing,  and 
may  take  and  touch  as  it  lists.  If  Cuba  is  not  revolutionized  and 
annexed  within  the  ensuing  four  years  the  leaders  of  the  propaganda 
will  deem  it  the  policy  of  prudence  to  wait  till  the  plan  is  more  fully 
ripe. 

What  the  next  four  years  developed  was  atoned  for  in  blood, 
the  responsibility  for  which  does  not  rest  wholly  upon  any  one 
class. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  while  the  Free  Soil  party,  whose 
candidates,  John  P.  Hale  of  New  Hampshire,  and  George 
W.  Julian  of  Indiana,  had  been  nominated  in  a  convention 
held  at  Pittsburg  in  August,  cast  less  votes  than  in  1848,  it 
presented  a  platform  of  living  principles  which  in  time  came 
to  be  accepted  by  a  majority  of  the  Northern  people.  For 
the  present,  the  American  people,  industrious,  prosperous 
and  indifferent  to  politics,  are  contented  with  Franklin  Pierce 
in  the  White  House. 

The  year  was  otherwise  made  memorable  by  the  death  of 
the  two  most  famous  statesmen  of  the  time,  who  had  contested 
for  primacy  in  leadership  without  either  reaching  the  goal  of 
his  honorable  ambition.  Mr.  Clay  died  June  29th,  shortly 
after  the  adjournment  of  the  Whig  national  convention;  Mr. 
Webster  a  few  days  before  the  crushing  defeat  of  his  party. 


VOL.  I.— II. 


CHAPTER   VI 


THE     KANSAS-NEBRASKA     BILL — SQUATTER     SOVEREIGNTY — 
THE   FIGHT   FOR   KANSAS 

THE  declaration  of  Mr.  Pierce  in  his  first  message  that  the 
repose  which  had  followed  the  enactment  of  the  Com 
promise  of  1850  "is  to  suffer  no  shock  during  my  official 
term,  if  I  have  the  power  to  avert  it,"  was  received  with  gen 
eral  satisfaction  throughout  the  country.  The  prosperity 
everywhere  prevalent,  the  marvellous  growth  of  new  com 
munities,  the  absorption  of  thought  and  energy  in  the  devel 
opment  of  agriculture,  commerce  and  mining,  rendered  the 
people  indifferent  to  the  discussion  of  political  subjects.  They 
confidently  looked  to  the  President  for  a  continuance  of  good 
times,  and  would  most  cordially  give  support  to  a  policy  hav 
ing  for  its  purpose  the  promotion  of  pure  democratic  principles 
in  the  practical  administration  of  the  business  affairs  of  the 
government.  The  winning  manners  of  the  President  insured 
the  good  will  of  those  who  had  intercourse  with  him.  He  was 
fortunate,  also,  in  having  the  support  of  both  Houses  of  Con 
gress  by  decided  majorities,  as  it  was,  therefore,  possible  to 
carry  out  any  party  policy  that  might  be  adopted.  No  pre 
ceding  administration  began  under  more  favorable  auspices. 

The  President,  however,  in  constituting  his  Cabinet,  invited 
dissensions  in  the  party.  He  unfortunately  fell  under  the  in 
fluence  of  the  extreme  States  Rights  leaders  of  the  South, 
although  he  had  it  in  his  power  to  strengthen  the  Union 
sentiment  in  the  South  by  throwing  the  influence  of  the  ad 
ministration  with  the  majority,  and,  by  strengthening  it  there, 

162 


Mr.  Pierce's  Cabinet  163 

to  strengthen  it  everywhere,  and  so  to  secure  to  a  conservative 
Democratic  party  the  confidence  and  cordial  support  of  an 
irresistible  preponderance  of  the  American  people. 

In  the  political  contest  in  the  States  of  Georgia,  Alabama 
and  Mississippi  in  1850-1,  the  Union  cause  was  triumphant. 
Jefferson  Davis  in  his  The  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate 
Government  reaffirms  the  correctness  of  the  declaration  made 
by  him  in  1853,  that  no  party  in  Mississippi  ever  advocated 
disunion,  and  that  he  and  his  associates  in  1851  were  unjustly 
charged  with  a  desire  to  destroy  the  Union — "a  feeling  enter 
tained  by  few,  very  few,  if  by  any  in  Mississippi,  and  avowed  by 
none"  1 ;  and  yet  he  says  that  in  the  canvass  for  Governor, 

believing  that  the  signs  of  the  time  portended  danger  to  the  South 
from  the  usurpation  by  the  general  government  of  undelegated 
powers,  I  counselled  that  Mississippi  should  enter  into  the  proposed 
meeting  of  the  people  of  the  Southern  States,  to  consider  what 
could  and  should  be  done  to  insure  our  future  safety,  frankly  stating 
my  conviction,  that  unless  such  action  were  taken  then,  sectional 
rivalry  would  engender  greater  evils  in  the  future,  and  that,  if  the 
controversy  was  postponed,  "the  last  opportunity  for  a  peaceful 
solution  would  be  lost,  then  the  issue  would  have  to  be  settled  by 
blood."2 

It  is  understood  that  Mr.  Davis  was  in  favor  of  separate 
State  action,  which  can  only  be  interpreted  to  mean  the  asser 
tion  of  the  right  of  a  State  to  secede  at  will.  General  Quit- 
man,  whom  Mr.  Davis  championed  most  generously,  advised 
a  call  for  a  State  convention,  and  declared  that  if  but  one 
State  would  secede,  the  attempt  to  coerce  her  would  bring 
about  a  Southern  confederacy.  Hodgson  takes  issue  with 
Mr.  Davis  as  to  the  character  of  the  canvass,  and  says:  "The 
issue  of  secession,  being  presented  clearly  and  distinctly  to 
the  people  of  Mississippi,  it  was  clearly  and  distinctly  re 
pudiated." 

In  Alabama  the  right  of  peaceable  secession  was  widely 
discussed  and  openly  denied.  A  majority  of  the  Congress 

'Vol.  i.,  p.  iS.          *Ibid.,  p.  21.  zThe  Cradle  of  the  Confederacy,  p.  283. 


1 64  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

districts  were  carried  by  candidates  who  denied  the  right  of  a 
State  to  secede.  Benjamin  G.  Shields,  a  distinguished  citizen, 
whose  name  had  been  proposed  for  Governor,  in  a  public  card 
said:  "  I  am  for  this  federal  Union  of  ours  under  all  circum 
stances  and  at  all  hazards;  right  or  wrong,  I  am  for  the 
Union."  This  was  the  sentiment  that  triumphed,  the  senti 
ment  that  ought  to  have  received  open  recognition  by  the 
new  President.  When,  however,  he  invited  Jefferson  Davis, 
the  associate  of  Quitman  and  Yancey  in  the  secession  move 
ment,  to  a  seat  in  his  Cabinet,  were  not  the  Unionists  of 
Georgia,  Alabama  and  Mississippi  justified  in  regarding  them 
selves  and  their  cause  as  under  the  condemnation  of  the  ad 
ministration? 

Equally  unfortunate  was  the  appointment  of  Caleb  Cushing 
as  Attorney-General,  to  represent  New  England.  He  was  an 
able,  but  erratic  man,  deficient  in  moral  fibre,  who  became  the 
willing  instrument  of  an  unscrupulous  administration  in  the 
promotion  of  party  schemes.  Mr.  Marcy,  Secretary  of  State, 
while  a  man  of  high  character  and  a  statesman  of  wide  ex 
perience,  represented  only  a  fraction  of  the  party  in  New 
York,  and  his  appointment  intensified  the  quarrels  in  his  own 
State.  And  while  not  approving  of  the  political  policy  of  the 
administration  as  developed  early  in  1854,  he  had  not  the  in 
dependence  to  withdraw.  The  other  members  cut  no  figure 
in  the  political  controversy  that  Pierce  left  to  his  successor  as 
a  bloody  inheritance.2 

The  auspicious  beginning  of  the  administration  was  the 
source  of  much  anxiety  and  discouragement  to  the  Free  Soil 

1  The  Cradle  of  the  Confederacy,  p.  296.     Mr.  Shields  was  a  native  of  South 
Carolina. 

2  The  other  members   were  James    Guthrie    of    Kentucky,     Secretary  .of    the 
Treasury  ;  James  C.  Dobbin  of  North  Carolina,  Secretary  of  the  Navy  ;  James 
Campbell    of    Pennsylvania,    Postmaster-General,     and    Robert    McClellaad    of 
Michigan,  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 

As  to  lack  of  harmony  in  the  Cabinet  and  embarrassment  of  the  President,  see 
Seward  at  Washington,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  202-12  ;  Correspondence  of  New  York 
Tribune;  War  of  the  Rebellion,  by  H.  S.  Foote,  chap,  x.,  and  Rise  and  Fall, 
vol.  ii.,  p.  383. 


Slave  Power  Triumphant  165 

leaders.  They  feared  that  the  public  conscience  would  be 
lulled,  and  that  the  institution  of  slavery  would  strengthen  its 
hold  upon  the  country  to  such  a  degree  that  men  ambitious  of 
preferment  would  be  more  than  ever  the  servants  of  the 
dominating  power. 

The  party  favorable  to  denationalizing  slavery  had  ap 
parently  lost  support  in  the  North.  Hale  had  returned  to 
the  practice  of  the  law  and  Chase  was  soon  to  give  place  to  Geo. 
E.  Pugh,  an  administration  Democrat.  Sumner  complained 
that  Seward  was  now  silent  when  the  subject  of  slavery  was 
mentioned.1  And  yet  the  New  York  Senator  also  had  fore 
bodings,  not  discernible  in  his  uniform  serenity  of  manner. 
He  was  courted  and  admired  by  the  able  Southerners  who  did 
not  despair  of  his  conversion  to  their  views  of  political  policy. 
The  persistency  with  which  they  discussed  the  subject  at  his 
table,  and  the  zeal  with  which  they  sought  to  convince  him 
how  wrong  he  was  and  how  he  was  ruining  his  great  prospects, 
led  him  to  form  the  resolution  never  more  to  talk  at  dinner 
with  more  than  one  slavery  man  at  a  time.  "One  will  always 
agree  with  me,  or  at  least  agree  to  tolerate  me,  but  where  there 
are  more  than  one  they  watch  each  other."  Optimist  as  he 
was,  the  prospect  discouraged  him.  Would  the  time  never 
come  when  free  labor  would  engage  the  fostering  care  of  gov 
ernment  and  when  America  would  no  longer  defy  the  humane 
sentiments  of  Christendom? 

I  look  around  me  in  the  Senate  [said  he]  and  find  all  demoral 
ized.  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island,  Ver 
mont!!  All,  all,  in  the  hands  of  the  slaveholders;  and  even  New 
York  ready  to  howl  at  my  heels,  if  I  were  only  to  name  the  name  of 
freedom,  which  once  they  loved  so  much.2 

Of  very  different  type  was  the  President.  We  read  the  soul 
of  the  man  in  words  written  by  his  devoted  friend,  Hawthorne, 
after  both  had  laid  aside  official  cares : 

Amid  all  his  former   successes, — early  as  they  came  and  great 

1  Memoirs,  vol.  iii.,  p.  346. 

2  Se-ward  at  IVashington,  vol.  ii.,  p.  216.     This  letter  was  dated  Jan.  4,  1854. 


1 66  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

as  they  were — I  always  perceived  that  something  gnawed  within 
him,  and  kept  him  forever  restless  and  miserable.  Nothing  he  won 
was  worth  the  winning,  except  a  step  gained  towards  the  summit. 
I  cannot  tell  how  early  he  began  to  look  towards  the  presidency; 
but  I  believe  he  would  have  died  an  unhappy  man  without  it.1 

Pierce's  star  of  fortune  reached  its  zenith  under  the  influence 
of  the  power  that  controlled  the  government  for  so  many 
years,  and  which  was  now  striving  to  make  that  power  perma 
nent.  He  did  its  bidding  early  and  late.  The  remark,  "We 
must  throw  overboard  Mr.  Hale  or  we  shall  lose  favor  with 
the  Southern  men,  "  2  made  in  1845,  *s  tne  key  to  his  public 
career.3  Southern  men  could  and  did  promote  his  ambition. 

There  is  abundant  evidence  that  throughout  the  Southern 
domination  the  leaders  confidently  believed  that  interest  alone 
governed  men,  that  interest  alone  could  be  trusted,4  and  that 
they  as  confidently  acted  on  that  principle  in  dealing  with  the 
North.  Meeting  with  continued  successes,  there  were  not 
wanting  those  who  reproached  Northern  men  in  gross  terms 
for  being  influenced  by  cupidity,  by  ambition  or  by  fear  to 
yield  to  the  rule  of  the  minority.  After  President  Pierce  had 
proved  himself  the  champion  of  slaveholding  interests  at  the 
sacrifice  of  the  greater  interests  of  the  whole  country,  and 
thereby  had  rendered  his  re-election  an  impssoibility,  and  after 
Virginia  had  transferred  her  support  to  another  "  Northern 
man  with  Southern  principles,"  the  editor  of  the  Richmond 
Examiner  explained  the  political  methods  that  had  so  long 
proved  successful.  Virginia,  the  "impersonation  of  the  well 
born,  well-educated,  well-bred  aristocrat/'  was  the  "sword 
and  buckler  at  the  South." 

^French  and  Italian  Note  Books,  vol.  ii.,  April  19,  1859. 

2  A  Reminiscence  of  the  Free  Soil  Movement  in  New  Hampshire,  p.  7. 

3  "  Mr.  Pierce     .     .     .     commenced  so  soon  as  he  had  a  chance  to  do  so,  dis 
coursing  in  his  messages  and  otherwise  of  the  blessings  of  slavery  ;  extolled  the 
South,  and  her  modes  of  thought  and  sentiment,  in  language  of  glowing  exuber 
ance  ;  announced  himself  to  all  the  world  as  the  champion  of  her  slaveholding 
rights  and  interests." — The  War  of  the  Rebellion,  by  Henry  S.  Foote,  p.  181. 

4  John  Adams,  in  remarks  in  the  Continental  Congress,  made  this  apply  to  men 
in  general. 


Slave  Power  Triumphant  167 

She  makes  and  unmakes  Presidents.  She  dictates  her  terms  to 
the  Northern  Democracy,  and  they  obey  her.  She  selects  from 
among  the  faithful  of  the  North  a  man  upon  whom  she  can  rely, 
and  she  makes  him  President.  She  takes  the  initiative  in  punish 
ing  traitors  like  Van  Buren,  and  her  sisters  of  the  South  unite  with 
her,  and  the  traitors  are  cast  out.  In  and  out  of  Congress  in  the 
science  of  politics,  she  holds  the  North  to  her  purpose. 

There  were  less  than  350,000  slaveholders  in  the  Union, 
who  constituted  the  ruling  aristocracy  against  whose  domina 
tion  there  never  was  more  than  a  feeble  protest.  In  truth, 
the  political  power  was  concentrated  in  the  hands  of  the  slave 
holders  of  Virginia,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama  and 
Mississippi — the  States  that  furnished  the  able  leaders  who 
originated  policies  and  directed  their  enforcement.  The 
census  of  1850  gave  their  number  as  follows: 

Alabama 29,295 

Georgia 38,456 

Mississippi 23,116 

South  Carolina 25i596 

Virginia 55,063 


Total 171,526 

To  this  complexion  had  American  Democracy  come  at  last.1 

1  The  following  table  classifying  the  owners  of  slaves  will  interest  the  student 
of  political  history.  The  power  of  the  two  citizens  holding  over  1000  slaves  each, 
under  the  three-fifths  clause  of  the  Constitution,  over  two  intelligent  citizens  of 
New  York  or  Ohio,  will  not  be  unnoticed  : 

Number  owning  one  slave 68,820 

Number  owning  more  than  one  and  under  five 105,682 

Number  owning  more  than  five  and  under  ten 80,675 

Number  owning  more  than  ten  and  under  twenty 54,595 

Number  owning  more  than  twenty  and  under  fifty 29,733 

Number  owning  more  than  fifty  and  under  one  hundred 6,976 

Number  owning  more  than  one  hundred  and  under  two  hundred.  1,479 

Number  owning  more  than  two  hundred  and  under  three  hundred  187 

Number  owning  more  than  three  hundred  and  under  five  hundred  56 

Number  owning  more  than  five  hundred  and  under  one  thousand  9 

Number  owning  one  thousand  and  over 2 

Total  slaveholders   348,214 


168  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

In  the  spirit  of  the  boastful  confidence  of  the  Examiner,  the 
inner  circle  of  Southern  statesmen  now  set  out  to  make  the 
Democracy  of  the  Union  accept  as  sound  doctrine  the  dogma 
of  Calhoun  (which  they  had  once  overwhelmingly  rejected  in 
national  convention),  that  the  Constitution  carried  slavery  into 
the  territories  and  maintained  it  there.  The  steps  by  which  this 
was  accomplished  will  be  shown  as  we  proceed  with  our  narrative. 

Scarcely  had  the  public  acclaim  over  the  President's  promise 
died  away  when  he  joined  a  conspiracy  to  disturb  the  repose 
which  he  had  promised  to  preserve,  the  ultimate  defeat  of 
which  after  years  of  strife  precipitated  the  great  civil  war. 

When  Mr.  Richardson,  chairman  of  the  House  Committee 
on  Territories,  reported  a  bill,  Feb.  2,  1853,  to  organize  the 
territory  of  Nebraska,  no  one  suggested  that  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  which  applied  only  to  the  Louisiana  Purchase, 
had  been  rendered  inoperative  by  the  Compromise  of  1850. 
It  received  the  support  of  Mr.  Giddings  and  other  Free  Soil 
members,  and  was  passed  by  a  large  majority.  The  bill  was 
reported  to  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Douglas,  without  amendment, 
on  the  last  day  of  the  session,  but  meeting  with  opposition 
from  Southern  Senators  for  the  reason  that  there  were  no 
white  settlers  in  the  territory,  and  for  alleged  violation  of  the 
treaties  with  the  Indian  tribes  located  in  the  eastern  part  of 
the  territory,  it  was  laid  upon  the  table.  During  the  debate,1 
Senator  Atchison  of  Missouri  remarked  that  though  in  favor 
of  it  now,  he  had  heretofore  opposed  the  organization  of  the 
territory  unless  slaveholders  could  go  there  with  their  property. 
He  had  always  been  of  the  opinion  that  the  first  great  error 
committed  in  the  political  history  of  this  country  was  the 
Ordinance  of  1787  making  the  Northwest  Territory  free.  The 
next  great  error  was  the  Missouri  Compromise.  "But,"  he 
added,  and  the  language  should  be  borne  in  mind — "But  they 
are  both  irremediable.  We  must  submit  to  them.  I  am  pre 
pared  to  do  it.  It  is  evident  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  can 
not  be  repealed"  No  Senator  suggested  that  that  act  had 
been  impaired  by  the  legislation  of  1850. 

1  Cong.  Globe,  1853,  pp.  1020-1117. 


Repeal  of  Missouri  Compromise          169 

A  new  bill  was  introduced  by  Senator  Dodge  on  the  4th  of 
the  following  December,  which  was  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  Territories.  The  subject  engaged  the  attention  of  Demo 
cratic  leaders  in  caucus.  Mr.  Atchison,  it  seems,  conceived  a 
plan  for  evading  the  Missouri  restriction  which  he  had  de 
clared  to  be  irrepealable,  and  confided  to  Mr.  Douglas  his  am 
bition  to  resign  the  office  of  President  of  the  Senate  in  order 
to  report  a  bill  authorizing  the  people  of  Nebraska  to  form  a 
territorial  government  without  excluding  slavery.  Mr.  Doug 
las  decided  to  keep  control  of  the  subject  himself.1  In  an 
elaborate  report  accompanying  the  territorial  bill  laid  before 
the  Senate  January  23,  1854,  reference  was  made  to  the  doubt 
entertained  by  some  as  to  the  constitutional  validity  of  the 
Missouri  restriction.  The  committee  added  that  they  re 
frained  from  taking  part  in  the  controversy,  as 

it  would  involve  the  same  issues  which  produced  the  agitation,  the 
sectional  strife,  and  the  fearful  struggle  of  1850.  As  Congress 
deemed  it  wise  and  prudent  to  refrain  from  deciding  the  matter  in 
controversy  then — either  by  affirming  or  repealing  the  Mexican 
laws,  or  by  an  act  declaratory  of  the  true  intent  of  the  Constitution, 
and  the  extent  of  the  protection  afforded  by  it  to  slave  property — 
so  we  are  not  prepared  to  recommend  a  departure  from  the  course 
pursued  on  that  memorable  occasion,  either  by  affirming  or  repeal 
ing  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act,  or  by  any  act  declaratory 
of  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  in  respect  to  the  legal  points  in 
dispute. 

They  closed  their  report  with  the  following  propositions,  as 
embracing  the  principles  of  the  legislation  recommended  for 
Nebraska : 

First.  That  all  questions  pertaining  to  slavery  in  the  terri 
tories,  and  in  the  new  States  to  be  formed  therefrom,  are  to 
be  left  to  the  decision  of  the  people  residing  therein,  by  their 

'Giddings's  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  365,  in  which  it  is  stated  that  the  facts 
were  afterwards  made  public  in  the  Senate.  See  also  speech  of  Atchison  at 
Atchison  City  in  September,  reported  in  the  Parkville  Luminary,  and  reprinted 
in  the  Cincinnati  Gazette  and  other  papers  of  the  day. 


1 70  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

appropriate  representatives,  to  be  chosen  by  them  for  that 
purpose. 

Second.  That  "all  cases  involving  titles  to  slaves/'  and 
"questions  of  personal  freedom,"  are  to  be  referred  to  the 
adjudication  of  the  local  tribunals,  with  the  right  of  appeal  to 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

Third.  That  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  in  respect  to  fugitives  from  service,  are  to  be 
carried  into  faithful  execution  in  all  the  organized  territories 
the  same  as  in  the  States. 

While  the  proposed  measure  did  not  repeal,  in  express  terms, 
the  Missouri  restriction  (it  being  desirable  to  avoid  a  rupture 
of  the  Democratic  party),  the  design  was  to  accomplish  that 
purpose  indirectly  through  pro-slavery  courts,  surrounded  by 
administration  influence.  To  this  Senator  Douglas,  who  did 
not  care  whether  slavery  was  voted  in  or  voted  out,  was  already 
committed.  He  was  speedily  forced  to  become  the  champion  of 
repeal  and  to  take  upon  himself  the  responsibility  for  break 
ing  down  a  barrier  created  to  protect  free  men  from  the  con 
tamination  of  a  servile  system — a  barrier  which  he  but  four 
years  before  in  perfervid  language  said  was  "canonized  in  the 
hearts  of  the  American  people  as  a  sacred  thing,  which  no 
ruthless  hand  would  ever  be  reckless  enough  to  disturb!  " 

Without  explanation  or  apology,  Douglas  took  upon  him 
self  the  new  role,  and  with  characteristic  audacity  and  bold 
ness  compelled  his  party  to  support  him.  It  was  a  Whig 
Senator  who  forced  him  into  the  open  field.  January  i6th, 
Mr.  Dixon  of  Kentucky  gave  notice  that  when  the  bill  which 
had  been  reported  by  the  committee  was  taken  up  for  con 
sideration,  he  would  offer  an  amendment  declaring  that  the 
eighth  section  of  the  act  of  1820,  admitting  Missouri, 

shall  not  be  so  construed  as  to  apply  to  the  territory  contemplated 
by  this  act,  or  to  any  other  territory  of  the  United  States;  but  that 
the  citizens  of  the  several  States  or  territories  shall  be  at  liberty  to 
take  and  hold  their  slaves  within  any  of  the  territories  of  the 
United  States  or  of  the  States  to  be  formed  therefrom,  as  if  the 
said  act  had  never  been  passed. 


The  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  171 

Mr.  Sumner  promptly  gave  notice  that  he  should  propose 
an  amendment  that  nothing  contained  in  the  bill  should  be 
construed  to  abrogate  or  in  any  way  contravene  the  act  of 
March  6,  1820,  in  which  it  was  declared  that  slavery  was  pro 
hibited  in  the  Louisiana  Territory  north  of  36°  30'. 

Thus  the  issue  was  joined,  and,  on  the  authority  of  Mr. 
Dixon,  against  the  remonstrance  of  the  author  of  the  measure. 
But  a  few  days'  reflection  sufficed  to  bring  him  up  to  the 
full  measure  of  repealing  the  Compromise.  He  invited  Mr. 
Dixon  to  ride  with  him,  and  then  informed  him  of  his  purpose. 

It  is  due  to  the  South;  [said  he]  it  is  due  to  the  Constitution, 
heretofore  palpably  infracted;  it  is  due  to  the  character  for  consist 
ency  which  I  have  heretofore  labored  to  maintain.  The  repeal,  if 
we  can  effect  it,  will  produce  much  stir  and  commotion  in  the  free 
States  of  the  Union  for  a  season.  I  shall  be  assailed  by  demagogues 
and  fanatics  there  without  stint  or  moderation.  But,  acting  under 
the  sense  of  duty  which  animates  me,  I  am  prepared  to  make  the 
sacrifice.  I  will  do  it.1 

But  Jefferson  Davis  says  he  agreed  to  do  it,  provided  he 
could  "  first  be  assured  that  it  would  receive  favorable  con 
sideration  from  the  President."  *  On  Sunday  morning,  Jan 
uary  22d,  Mr.  Douglas,  accompanied  by  the  Democratic 
members  of  the  territorial  committees  of  both  Houses,  by 
the  assistance  of  Mr.  Davis,  then  Secretary  of  War,  had  an 
interview  with  the  President  to  ascertain  if  he  could  make  the 
repeal  an  administration  measure,  and  received  the  most  satis 
factory  assurances  of  support.  The  wily  Senator,  not  wholly 
trusting  the  word  of  the  President,  subsequently  secured  in 
his  handwriting  an  amendment  which  was  engrafted  on  the 
bill  later.  Meanwhile — the  day  after  the  pledge — Douglas  in 
troduced  a  new  bill  to  organize  the  territories  of  Kansas  and 

1  Letter  of  Archibald  Dixon  to  H.  S.  Foote,  Oct.  I,  1858,  printed  in  the  Louis 
ville  Democrat,  Oct.  3.  Also  quoted  in  Abraham  Lincoln:  A  History ',  vol.  i., 

P-  347- 

*  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government ',  vol.  i.,  p.  27. 


i72  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Nebraska  in  which  the  Missouri   Compromise  was  declared 
inoperative. 

The  following  day  Mr.  Douglas  called  up  the  bill,  but  at 
the  request  of  several  Senators,  including  Chase  and  Sumner, 
who  wished  to  examine  its  provisions,  its  consideration  was 
postponed  until  the  3Oth.  Comprehending  the  full  meaning 
of  this  new  measure  of  the  slavery  propaganda,  the  Free 
Democratic  members  of  Congress  sounded  the  alarm  in  a 
vigorous  address  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  which 
met  with  such  sympathetic  and  quick  responses  from  every 
section  of  the  North  as  greatly  to  disturb  the  Illinois  Senator. 
When  the  bill  was  taken  up  for  consideration,  he  attempted 
to  divert  public  attention  from  the  iniquity  of  the  new  measure 
by  making  a  personal  attack  on  Chase  and  Sumner,  accusing 
them  of  discourtesy,  of  grossly  misrepresenting  the  character 
of  the  bill,  and  of  unfairly  arraigning  the  motives  of  the  com 
mittee.  The  language  of  the  address  is  the  best  answer  to 
Douglas's  plaint,  which  failed  of  its  purpose.  He  had  roused 
fears  that  could  not  be  allayed;  he  had  precipitated  a  con 
troversy  that  had  to  be  submitted  to  the  arbitrament  of  war. 
In  further  recognition  that  he  was  now  put  upon  his  defence, 
two  weeks  after  he  had  introduced  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 
he  substituted  the  following  paragraph  for  the  clause  declaring 
the  Missouri  restriction  "inoperative  and  void  "  : 

Which,  being  inconsistent  with  the  principle  of  non-intervention 
by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  and  territories  as  recognized 
by  the  legislation  of  1850  (commonly  called  the  compromise  meas 
ures),  is  hereby  declared  inoperative  and  void;  it  being  the  true 
intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  ter 
ritory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people 
thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institu 
tions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

Mr.  Chase  moved  to  amend  by  inserting  immediately  after 
the  above  the  following  sentence: 


The  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  173 

Under  which  the  people  of  the  territory,  through  their  appro 
priate  representatives,  may,  if  they  see  fit,  prohibit  the  existence  of 
slavery  therein. 

The  Chase  amendment  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  10  to  36.1 

During  the  debate  on  the  Chase  amendment,  Mr.  Pratt,  of 
Maryland,  moved  further  to  amend  by  inserting  after  the  word 
"prohibit"  the  words  "or  introduce,"  which  would  give  to  the 
people  the  power  either  to  introduce  or  to  prohibit  slavery. 
This  was  ruled  out,  as  beyond  an  amendment  to  an  amend 
ment  parliamentary  law  forbade  going,  and  Mr.  Chase  could 
not  consistently  make  Mr.  Pratt's  motion  a  part  of  his  own 
proposition. 

It  having  been  remarked  that  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  re 
striction  would  revive  any  slave  laws  in  force  in  the  Louisiana 
Territory  prior  to  1820,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Badger  of  North 
Carolina,  provision  was  made  against  such  contingency.  Thus 
formed,  after  a  heated  discussion  the  bill  was  passed  on  the 
4th  of  March  by  a  vote  of  37  to  14,  and  sent  to  the  House, 
where,  after  a  protracted  struggle,  it  was  also  approved — yeas, 
113;  nays,  100.  In  the  Senate,  Bell  of  Tennessee  and  Hous 
ton  of  Texas  voted  against  the  bill.  In  the  House  nine 
Southern  members — seven  Whigs  and  two  Democrats — voted 
in  the  negative.2  The  States  of  Vermont,  Massachusetts, 
Rhode  Island  and  Wisconsin  furnished  no  votes  for  the  bill. 
Only  four  of  Ohio's  twenty-one  members  of  the  House  fol 
lowed  the  administration,  and  they  were  promptly  retired  by 
their  constituents.  The  bill  was  carried  by  Northern  Demo 
cratic  votes.  No  Northern  Whig  voted  for  it. 

A  wave  of  indignation  swept  over  the  North,  and  before 

1  "  This  touchstone  of  the  true  nature  and  intent  of  the  measure  was  most  de 
cisively  voted  down." — Greeley's  The  American  Conflict,  vol.  i.,  p.  232,  n. 

2  The  negative  Southern  votes  were  made  up  as  follows  :     Senate — Bell,  Whig, 
of    Tennessee  ;    Samuel    Houston,     Democrat,    of    Texas.       House — Louisiana, 
Theodore  G.    Hunt,  Whig  ;   Missouri,    Thomas  H.   Benton,    Democrat  ;    North 
Carolina,  Richard  C.   Puryear,   Sion  H.   Rogers,  Whigs;  Tennessee,  Robert   M. 
Bugg,  William  Cullom,  Emerson  Etheridge,   Nathaniel  G.   Taylor,  Whigs  ;  Vir 
ginia,  John  S.  Millson,   Democrat.     In  the  Senate,  John  M.  Clayton,  Whig,  of 
Delaware,  voted  against  engrossing  the  bill,  but  he  had  spoken  for  it. 


174  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Douglas  had  fairly  effected  his  combinations,  the  press  and 
the  pulpit  were  arrayed  against  him  and  gave  him  a  new  ex 
perience  in  censorious  criticism.  Here  was  a  vast  territory 
stretching  from  the  thirty-seventh  degree  of  latitude  to  the 
British  possessions  and  from  the  Missouri  border  to  the  sum 
mit  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  embracing  an  area  of  four  hun 
dred  and  eighty-five  thousand  square  miles,  equal  in  extent 
to  Great  Britain,  France,  Portugal  and  Italy  (which  countries 
then  contained  a  population  of  about  eighty  millions),  which 
had  been  dedicated  to  the  use  of  free  men  by  an  agreement 
heretofore  held  to  be  sacred — an  agreement  under  which  the 
Southern  section  had  already  had  its  share.  The  proposition 
now  made  to  abrogate  that  solemn  compact  for  the  purpose 
of  increasing  the  political  power  of  the  aristocracy  of  slavery 
was  so  perfidious  as  to  justify  the  language  of  the  remon 
strances  that  went  up  to  Congress  from  the  clergymen  of  the 
North. 

We  protest  against  it  [said  they]  as  a  great  moral  wrong,  as  a  breach 
of  faith  eminently  unjust  to  the  moral  principles  of  the  community, 
and  subversive  of  all  confidence  in  national  engagements;  as  a 
measure  full  of  danger  to  the  peace  and  even  to  the  existence  of  our 
beloved  Union,  and  exposing  us  to  the  righteous  judgments  of  the 
Almighty.1 

Douglas  responded  in  a  letter  to  the  Chicago  clergymen  full 
of  specious  and  adroit  pleading,  of  which  he  was  a  master,  and 
later  in  the  Senate  he  indulged  in  coarse  invective,  to  which  he 
was  addicted  when  hard  pressed  by  an  opponent.  He  appeared 
to  better  advantage  as  a  leader  in  debate,  a  character  in  which 
he  has  had  few  equals.  He  was  engaged  in  a  contest  that 
tested  his  skill  and  endurance,  during  which  he  too  often  dis 
played  irritation  and  impatience.  After  the  division  in  his 
party,  when  his  better  genius  led  him  to  denounce  the  frauds 
committed  under  cover  of  official  sanction,  he  became  almost 

1  Senator  Everett  laid  before  the  Senate  a  remonstrance  signed  by  3050  clergy 
men  of  New  England.  A  similar  remonstrance  from  the  Northwest  contained 
the  names  of  500  clergymen.  The  churches  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Pennsylvania  and 
New  York  took  action. 


Douglas  on  Popular  Sovereignty         175 

great.  His  popularity  increased  in  proportion  as  he  seemed 
most  anxious  to  overthrow  the  government  wrongfully  set  up 
in  the  name  of  " Popular  Sovereignty."  That  phrase  he  had 
coined  to  catch  the  popular  ear,  and  it  saved  him  from  defeat 
in  many  a  pinch  during  the  next  five  years. 

What  chance  had  the  real  issue  before  a  mass  meeting,  with 
the  author  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  as  orator?  The  people 
were  told  that  that  measure  vindicated  the  great  principle  of 
self-government.  It  repealed  a  guarantee  and  a  prohibition 
— both  wrong  in  principle,  unconstitutional,  and  wholly  incon 
sistent  with  any  sound  rule  of  justice  and  propriety.  The 
people  north  of  36°  30'  were  as  much  entitled  to  have  slaves  if 
they  desired  them  as  the  people  south  of  that  line,  and  the 
restriction  was  not  upon  slavery  but  upon  the  freedom  and 
rights  of  the  people.  South  of  a  given  line  the  people  were 
recognized  as  capable  of  self-government ;  those  living  north 
of  it  as  certain  to  use  that  privilege  to  their  own  injury.  "It 
was  a  restriction  which  in  terms  and  effect  discriminated 
against  the  intelligence  and  capacity  of  the  Northern  people." 

The  sinfulness  of  slavery;  the  boon  of  freedom  and  the  op 
portunity  under  it  for  individual  effort;  the  blessings  of  edu 
cation,  of  family  life  without  the  shadow  of  human  bondage 
and  degrading  passions — these,  and  the  inconsistency  of  an 
aristocracy  within  a  republic,  all  are  left  out  of  view. 

Douglas  persistently  asserted  that  the  Compromise  of  1850 
condemned  the  Missouri  restriction,  and  established  a  new 
principle  of  non-intervention  which  he  had  incorporated  in 
his  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,2  in  obedience  to  the  popular  ver 
dict  of  1852.  He  could  fall  back  on  the  resolutions  of  the 
Legislature  of  Illinois,  relating  to  the  Compromise  of  1850,  in 
which  the  hope  was  expressed  that  in  all  future  legislation  for 
the  organization  of  territories  the  principle  of  non-intervention 
might  be  incorporated.  It  is  certain  that  he  expected  the 

1  The  Life  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  by  James  W.  Sheahan,  chap,  x.,  which  con 
tains  a  clever  defence  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act. 

'2Benton  said  that  the  Congress  of  1850  declined  to  disturb  the  Mexican  laws 
in  Utah  and  New  Mexico  which  prohibited  slavery,  and  there  was  no  new  prin 
ciple  established  as  claimed  by  Douglas. 


176  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

experience  of  other  sectional  contests  would  be  repeated;  that 
the  repeal  would  produce  a  commotion  in  the  North  for  a 
season  only.  And  it  is  probable  that  he  counted  on  the 
greater  energy  and  persistency  of  the  Yankees  in  colonizing 
the  new  territories  and  outvoting  the  Southern  squatters. 

It  is  related  that  in  a  company  of  his  political  friends,  some 
of  whom  held  anti-slavery  views,  at  the  Tremont  House, 
Chicago,  after  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  he 
listened  attentively  to  their  objections  and  without  attempting 
any  exculpation  simply  remarked:  "Well,  gentlemen,  do  you 
not  see  that  the  act  meets  the  claims  of  the  South  for  equality 
of  rights  in  the  territories,  and  that  the  North  will  make  them 
free  States? " 1 

In  justification  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  it  was  urged 
by  Southern  Senators  that  the  Missouri  restriction  had  been 
virtually  abrogated  in  1850,  "by  the  refusal  of  the  represen 
tatives  of  the  North  to  apply  it  to  the  territory  then  recently 
acquired  from  Mexico  "  ;  by  Northern  Democratic  members 
that  it  had  been  superseded  by  the  incorporation  of  the  prin 
ciple  of  non-intervention  by  Congress  in  the  organization  of 
territories  and  thus  rendered  inoperative — in  effect  denying 
that  the  Constitution  conferred  on  Congress  the  power  to 
legislate  for  the  people  of  a  territory.  The  author  of  the 
measure  held  that  it  was  but  the  extension  of  the  principle 
upon  which  the  Colonies  separated  from  the  Crown  of  Great 
Britain,  the  principle  upon  which  the  battles  of  the  Revolution 
were  fought  and  the  principle  upon  which  our  republican  sys 
tem  was  founded — that  the  people  ought  to  possess  the  right 
of  forming  and  regulating  their  own  internal  concerns  and 
domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way.  He  believed  it  would 
have  the  effect  to  destroy  all  sectional  parties  and  sectional 
agitations,  as  it  would  withdraw  the  slavery  question  from  the 
halls  of  Congress  and  the  political  arena,  and  commit  it  to  the 
arbitrament  of  those  who  were  immediately  interested  in  and 
alone  responsible  for  its  consequences.2 

1  MS.     From  notes  of  a  conversation  with  the  Hon.  Henry  W.  Blodgett. 

2  Cong.  Globe,  1854.     Douglas's  speech  of  March  3d. 


Douglas  on  Popular  Sovereignty          177 

This  was  repeating  the  plausible  reasoning  of  1850  which 
reconciled  the  North  to  legislation  that  seemed  to  conflict  with 
conscientious  convictions.  As  the  country  found  relief  from 
political  agitation  in  the  Compromise,  the  leaders  in  this  new 
movement  flattered  themselves  that  similar  results  would  ensue 
from  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  restriction. 

Alexander  H.  Stephens  likened  the  sectional  contest  in 
Congress  to  the  discord  that  prevailed  in  Heaven  until  "the 
First  Born,  clothed  in  the  majesty  of  divine  power,  arose  and 
hurled  the  factious  hosts  from  the  empyrean  battlements  to 
the  bottomless  pits  below."  So  in  the  halls  of  the  Capitol 
they  had  seen  peace-destroying  feuds  and  unseemly  conflicts 
engendered  and  instigated  by  the  fell  demon  of  "restriction," 
or  "Wilmot  Proviso,"  which  stalked  with  insolent  brow  in 
their  very  midst. 

These  scenes  lasted  until  the  Genius  of  our  country  rose  in  its 
might  on  the  iyth  June,  1850,  armed  with  the  great  American  prin 
ciple  of  self-government,  which  had  borne  our  fathers  through  the 
struggle  of  the  Revolution,  and  drove  the  hideous  monster,  with  all 
his  impious  crew,  from  the  Capitol — cast  them  out  and  hurled  them 
downwards  to  that  lower  deep  from  which  their  plaintive  howls  now 
ascend. 

He  did  not  believe  that  this  measure  would  meet  with  dis 
favor  in  the  North.  Agitation  would  soon  die  out  as  it  had 
when  the  Wilmot  Proviso  was  abandoned,  and  when  the  Com 
promise  was  adopted.  Gaining  courage  as  he  proceeded,  he 
indulged  in  a  show  of  bravado.  The  North,  he  said,  were 
driven  by  the  South  in  1850,  and  the  North  would  again  yield 
acquiescence  to  Southern  dictation. 

But  yielding  as  the  North  had  been  in  the  past,  there  was  a 
point,  said  Campbell,  of  Ohio,  "at  which  even  their  forbear 
ance  ceases  to  be  a  virtue."  l 

This  was  better  understood  by  Senator  Bell  of  Tennessee 
than  by  others  from  his  section.  He  opposed  the  bill  because 
"it  would  alienate  the  noble  men  of  the  North  who  sustained 

1  Appendix  Cong.  Globe,  1854,  p.  244. 


VOL.  I.  — 12. 


1 78  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

the  Compromise  of  1850."  Its  tendency  was  to  stimulate  the 
formation  of  a  sectional  party  organization,  "the  most  fatal 
evil  which  could  befall  the  country,  except  the  dissolution  of 
the  Union,  and  that  last  and  greatest  calamity  the  success  of 
such  a  movement  would  infallibly  bring  about."  ' 

The  attempt  to  justify  the  Kansas-Nebraska  wrong  by  de 
claring  that  the  North  had  abrogated  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  by  refusing  to  extend  the  line  of  36°  30'  to  the  Pacific 
coast  in  1850  was  not  well  founded.  The  Compromise  ap 
plied  only  to  the  territory  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase.  It  was 
the  adjustment  of  complications  existing  in  1820.  The  North 
had  reluctantly  consented  to  it,  and  had  witnessed  the  exten 
sion  of  the  slave  power  under  it,  waiting  patiently  for  the 
benefits  accruing  to  freedom.  There  was  no  obligation  in 
curred  or  implied  that  similar  concessions  should  be  made  in 
the  case  of  territory  acquired  thereafter.  That  was  a  distinct 
transaction.  And  when  the  principle  of  non-intervention  was 
applied  to  New  Mexico  and  Utah  it  could  not  be  made  to 
supersede  the  Missouri  restriction  which  was  in  force  in  other 
and  distinct  territory. 

The  great  speeches  of  Chase,  Sumner,  Seward  and  Wade 
in  opposition  were  read  with  avidity,  and  their  arguments  were 
canvassed  wherever  two  or  more  were  gathered  together. 
Press  and  pulpit  barely  kept  abreast  of  public  sentiment: 

Why  urge  a  soul  already  filled  with  fire  ? 

Of  the  truth  of  this  even  those  who  had  promised  themselves 
that  the  resentment  roused  by  a  flagrant  breach  of  political 
faith  would  soon  pass  away  were  in  time  convinced.  They 
did  not  understand  Northern  character.  Organization  took 
the  place  of  indifference.  The  tocsin  was  sounded  in  every 
school  district,  and  thousands  who  had  been  engrossed  in 
trade,  professional  or  social  cares  became  leaders  in  the  new 
political  movement.  Not  even  the  patronage  of  a  corrupt 
administration — and  no  administration  was  more  shameless  in 
the  use  of  its  power  for  political  ends  than  this — could  save 

'Appendix  Cong,  Globe,  1854,  p.  948. 


Attitude  of  Southern  Whigs  179 

the  representatives  of  the  people,  who  had  destroyed  the  peace 
of  the  country,  from  defeat. 

The  incertitude  attending  the  future  of  the  Whig  party  in 
the  South  was  full  of  meaning.  Stephens  and  Toombs  had 
deserted  in  1852.  Hilliard,  Watts,  Bell,  Marshall  and  other 
leaders  still  hoped  for  the  restoration  of  the  National  Whig 
party ;  with  the  unhappy  slavery  controversy  laid,  they  were 
certain  of  bringing  about  such  a  reunion  as  would  insure  the 
success  of  their  political  principles  and  the  promotion  of  the 
business  interests  of  the  country,  which  were  being  neglected 
for  party  or  sectional  ends.  These  hopes  were  destined  to  be 
speedily  extinguished.  The  incorporation  of  the  Massachu 
setts  Emigrant  Aid  Company,  upon  the  heels  of  the  repeal 
of  the  Missouri  restriction,  led  the  Southern  Whigs  to  abandon 
any  effort  at  a  restoration  of  the  restriction,  and  to  abandon 
their  party  organization.1  The  advantage  of  position  was  so 
clearly  with  the  States  Rights  party  that  the  Whigs  found  that 
their  only  opportunity  for  resistance  to  disunion  was  through 
a  new  organization.  They  largely  joined  the  American  party, 
which  was  pledged  to  refuse  "to  test  the  suitableness  of  any 
man  for  public  office  by  the  question  whether  he  is  for  or 
against  the  mere  extension  of  slavery  in  some  territory  of  the 
United  States."  Nevertheless  they  admitted  the  principles 
of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  as  to  the  rights  of  the  people 
settling  in  a  territory,  while  putting  their  opposition  to  the 
Democracy  on  the  indisputable  fact  that  they  had  "elevated 
sectional  hostility  into  a  positive  element  in  political  power 
and  brought  our  institutions  into  peril."  * 

The  people,  living  in  a  state  of  unceasing  excitement,  moved 
by  a  great  passion — patient  under  business  reverses  and  dis 
ordered  finances;  indifferent  to  war  clouds  in  the  East  and  to 
the  fate  of  contending  armies  in  the  Crimea;  engrossed  with 
one  subject  that  forces  itself  upon  their  attention,  and  that 
shall  continue  to  do  so  until  settled  beyond  the  power  of  any 
to  disturb  it  again — this  briefly  describes  the  United  States 
in  1854. 

1  The  Cradle  of  the  Confederacy,  chap.  xiii.  *  Ibid. 


i8o  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

"Is  not  freedom  to  be  considered  as  well  as  slavery?"  perti 
nently  asked  Senator  Wade  of  the  administration  majority 
who  seemed  solicitous  only  for  the  expansion  and  protection 
of  the  system  of  human  bondage.  Not  the  least  remarkable 
of  the  facts  connected  with  this  movement,  is  the  fact  that  the 
majority  left  out  of  view  altogether  the  progress  of  man,  and 
believed  it  possible  to  perpetuate  a  system  the  world  had  out 
grown.  The  ruling  aristocracy  of  the  South  were  proclaiming 
the  doctrine  that  the  proper  relation  of  labor  to  capital  was 
that  of  servitude — a  relation  that  developed  the  most  beautiful 
sentiments  of  the  human  heart,  and  established  social  order 
upon  a  solid  foundation.  They  contrasted  this  peaceful  sys 
tem,  under  which  they  found  opportunity  for  a  high  order  of 
intellectual  existence,  with  the  unrest  of  the  democratic 
system  at  the  North,  "which  was  unfitted  for  well-bred  gentle 
men,"  l  and  which  was  a  constant  menace  to  orderly  govern 
ment.  During  the  debate  in  the  House  in  December,  1853, 
on  the  railroad  riots  at  Erie  which  obstructed  one  of  the  great 
channels  of  commerce,  Mr.  Boyce,  of  South  Carolina,  address 
ing  the  Northern  members,  said :  "It  is  one  of  the  misfortunes 
to  which  you  are  exposed  by  having  your  whole  population 
made  up  of  freemen."  2 

1  Muscogee  Herald. 

2  The  Erie  riots  created  wide-spread   excitement.     There  was  no  consolidated 
system  of  transcontinental  transportation  in  the  early  fifties.     The  railroads  had 
been  constructed  under  limited  charters,   and   were   managed   independently  of 
each  other.     Numerous  changes  were  necessary  to  make  the  journey  from   the 
Atlantic  seaboard  to  the  Ohio  valley,  and  vexatious  delays  were  the  rule.     These 
delays  were  multiplied  on  the  route  through  New  York  by  a  difference  in  the 
gauge  of  the  roads.     At  the  State  line  west  of  Buffalo,  a  transfer  was  made  to 
the  Erie,  which  had  a  six  foot  track,  and  a  run  of  twenty  miles  took  the  traveller 
to  Erie,  where  another  change  was  made  to  the  Cleveland  or  Lake  Shore  road, 
which  had  the  same  gauge  as  the  Rochester  line  east  of  Buffalo.     In  attempting 
to  make  a  uniform  gauge  so  as  to  run  cars  from  Buffalo  to  Cleveland  without 
change,  the  citizens  of  Erie  County,  Pennsylvania,  obstructed  the  work. 

The  dispute  was  settled  in  the  courts  after  interstate  commerce  had  been  a  long 
time  impeded,  to  the  disgust  of  the  general  public.  Pending  the  settlement  large 
meetings  were  held  at  Cincinnati  and  other  cities,  against  the  action  of  the  citizens 
of  Erie.  At  a  meeting  held  at  Indianapolis  a  memorial  to  Congress  was  adopted, 
which  was  laid  before  the  House  by  Thomas  A.  Hendricks,  Dec.  31,  1853.  In 


Attitude  of  Southern  Whigs  181 

Not  only  was  the  system  of  labor  a  mistake,  but  the  ten 
dency  of  the  whole  order  of  society  was  to  lodge  the  power  of 
control  in  the  hands  of  an  irresponsible  and  imperfectly  edu 
cated  majority.1  Aye,  not  only  the  North  but  America  was 
set  apart  for  freemen.  That  was  the  contention  of  one  sec 
tion,  the  behest  of  the  Declaration.  The  two  systems  were 
now  in  deadly  conflict.  To  the  complaint  of  the  South  of 
unfriendliness,  the  North  replied:  We  are  not  against  you. 
"It  is  mankind;  it  is  the  world,  it  is  civilization,  it  is  history, 
it  is  reason,  it  is  God  that  is  against  slavery." 

No  one  at  this  day  will  question  the  sincerity  of  the  Southern 

presenting  the  memorial  Mr.  Hendricks  said:  "  If  a  company  of  six  or  eight 
hundred  men  had  invaded  our  borders,  and  had  interrupted  our  commerce, 
stopped  our  mails,  and  hindered  the  intercommunication  of  people,  the  attention 
of  the  whole  country  would  have  been  at  once  arrested  and  the  power  of  the 
whole  country  commanded.  The  same  section  of  the  Constitution  which  confers 
power  on  this  government  to  repel  invasion,  also  gives  the  correlative  obligation 
to  suppress  insurrection." — Cong.  Globe. 

The  comments  of  the  Richmond  Enquirer  were  : 

"  At  the  North  and  in  western  Europe,  by  attempting  to  dispense  with  a 
natural  and  necessary  and  hitherto  universal  institution  of  society,  you  have  thrown 
everything  into  chaotic  confusion.  In  dispensing  with  domestic  slavery  you  have 
destroyed  order,  and  removed  the  strongest  argument  to  prove  the  existence  of 
Deity,  the  author  of  that  order.  They  inculcate  competition  as  the  life  of  trade 
and  essence  of  morality.  The  good  order,  the  peace,  the  protection  and  affec 
tionate  relations  of  society  at  the  South,  induce  the  belief  in  a  Designer  and 
Author  of  this  order,  and  thus  'lift  the  soul  from  nature  up  to  nature's  God.' 
The  chaotic  confusion  of  free  society  has  the  opposite  effect." 

Contrast  the  above  with  Jefferson's  views  as  to  the  value  to  man  of  the  turbulence 
of  liberty,  and  with  the  views  of  the  Richmond  Enquirer  Jan.  7,  1832,  given 
below.  They  show  with  startling  clearness  the  radical  change  in  Southern 
opinion  : 

"  Are  we  forever  to  suffer  the  greatest  evil  which  can  scourge  our  land,  not 
only  to  remain,  but  to  increase  in  its  dimensions  ?  Something  ought  to  be  done. 
Means  sure  but  gradual,  systematic  but  discreet,  ought  to  be  adopted,  for  re 
ducing  the  mass  of  evil  which  is  pressing  upon  the  South,  and  will  still  more  press 
upon  her,  the  longer  it  is  put  off." 

1  "  But  the  worst  of  all  these  abominations  is  the  modern  system  of  free  schools, 
because  the  cause  and  prolific  source  of  the  infidelities  and  treasons  that  have 
turned  her  cities  into  Sodoms  and  Gomorrahs,  and  her  land  into  the  common 
nesting  places  of  howling  Bedlamites." — Richmond  Examiner  on  the  free  States. 

2  Life  and  Letters  of  Francis  Lieber. 


1 82  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

people.  We  have  seen  how  the  aspect  in  which  slavery  was 
viewed  during  the  first  nine  administrations  changed  as  the 
country  developed  and  the  value  of  the  negro  as  an  industrial 
factor  increased ;  how,  after  South  Carolina's  abortive  attempt 
at  nullification,  the  whole  power  of  the  government  was  em 
ployed  to  suppress  freedom  of  speech,  to  strengthen  the  insti 
tution  of  slavery  and  to  give  the  preponderance  of  political 
influence  to  the  Southern  section;  how  the  intolerance  and 
uncharitableness  of  Abolitionists  rendered  the  classes  most 
interested  deaf  to  reason  and  provoked  the  creation  of  harsh 
local  laws ;  how  filibustering  became  a  national  disgrace ;  how 
war  was  waged  upon  a  weak  republic  in  order  that  our  south 
western  boundary  might  be  extended ;  how  our  claim  to  a 
vast  territory  in  the  Northwest  was  ignominiously  surrendered 
and  the  boundary  of  freedom  retracted  l ;  how  the  admission 
of  the  sinfulness  of  human  bondage  gave  place  in  the  South 
to  the  declaration  that  it  not  only  was  not  an  evil  but  was  a 
positive  blessing2;  and  how  the  substitution  of  the  plausible 
political  theories  of  Calhoun  for  an  early  reading  of  the  Con 
stitution  divided  the  Democratic  party.  We  shall  see  how  a 
sense  of  insecurity  leads  to  an  open  rupture  of  the  Union 
and  the  final  establishment  of  fraternal  relations  between  the 
sections. 

The  Pierce  administration  early  engaged  through  force  and 
fraud  in  an  effort  to  extend  the  Southern  system  into  free 
territory.  If  another  slave  State  could  be  obtained,  there 
would  be  such  a  consolidation  of  sectional  power  in  the  Senate 
as  to  prevent  the  future  admission  of  any  free  State  without 

1  "  The  administration  was  vehement  in  asserting  an  equally  clear  right  in  both  ; 
but  whilst  the  Southern  claim  was  enforced  by  war  the  protestations  of  the  Presi 
dent   that  the   Northern  one  was  indisputable  were  actually   accompanied  by  a 
diplomatic  offer  of  the  present  boundary  line,  which  was  promptly  accepted  by 
England.     The  next  editions  of  our  school  atlases  showed  the  Southern  line  ad 
vanced  to  the  Rio  Grande,  and  the  Northern  one  retracted  so  as  to  exclude  a  terri 
tory  which  Sir  Charles  Dilke  says  is  equal  to  France,  Italy,  Belgium  and  Holland 
United." — Gen.  Jacob  D.  Cox  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  March,  1892. 

2  Charleston  Mercury.     Also  speeches  of  Mr.  Calhoun  and  other  States  Rights 
statesmen. 


The  Know-Nothing  Movement  183 

the  corresponding  admission  of  a  slave  State;  and  to  dictate 
the  future  political  policies  of  the  government  in  the  acquisi 
tion  of  territory,  in  commerce  and  finance.  In  case  of  success, 
secession  need  not  be  resorted  to,  because  the  Southern  would 
become  the  national  system. 

The  people  of  the  North  saw  the  danger,  and  felt  the  neces 
sity  of  meeting  it  with  overwhelming  force.  This  feeling  was 
spontaneous.  They  sank  political  prejudices,  they  severed 
party  ties,  they  postponed  all  other  questions  to  the  paramount 
claims  of  the  duties  of  the  hour.  These  were  to  settle  the 
future  status  of  the  new  States  upon  the  prairies  of  Kansas 
and  Nebraska ;  to  consolidate  opposition  to  the  administration, 
and  to  consign  to  political  oblivion  the  members  of  Congress 
who  had  betrayed  the  cause  of  freedom.  During  the  progress 
of  the  territorial  bill  through  its  legislative  stages,  imposing 
public  meetings  were  held  in  New  York,  Boston  and  the  cities 
of  the  West,  to  remonstrate,  but  these  failed  to  change  the 
party  decree.  The  protest  of  German  workingmen  of  New 
York  had  peculiar  significance.  The  Kansas  and  Nebraska 
measure,  it  declared,  "withdraws  from  the  operation  of  a 
future  homestead  bill  an  immense  stretch  of  territory. "  There 
could  be  no  free  homesteads  under  the  Southern  system. 
This  marks  the  beginning  of  the  desertion  of  the  bulk  of  the 
sturdy  German  population  of  New  York,  Ohio,  Illinois  and 
Wisconsin  from  the  Democratic  party. 

The  rapid  rise  of  the  American  or  Know-Nothing  party  was 
due  quite  as  much  to  the  breaking  up  of  old  associations  as  to 
the  mystery  with  which  it  was  surrounded.  The  reckless  vio 
lation  of  the  naturalization  laws  and  the  too  frequent  disregard 
of  requisite  qualifications  for  office,  especially  in  New  York 
and  Louisiana,  created  alarm  in  the  thirties  and  led  to  the 
organization  of  the  Native  American  Associations,  having  for 
their  chief  object  the  repeal  of  the  naturalization  laws.  After 
wards  these  associations  became  involved  in  a  controversy  with 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  attended  by  personal  assaults  and 
destruction  of  property.  The  American  or  Know-Nothing 
organization  was  a  revival  of  the  earlier  movement.  The 


1 84  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

secrecy  attending  it  gave  it  great  power  for  a  while,  but  later 
proved  a  weakness.  When  enjoying  its  greatest  triumph,  its 
principles  were  explained  on  the  floor  of  the  House: 

While  it  denies  no  rights  to  a  minority  [said  the  speaker],  it 
demands  the  rights  of  the  majority.  While  it  denies  to  foreigners 
nothing  that  belongs  to  them,  it  claims  and  assumes  the  prerogative 
of  government,  which  is,  here,  the  unquestioned  right  of  Ameri 
cans.  Denying  to  no  person  the  right  of  conscience,  or  the  freedom 
of  religious  opinion,  it  establishes  and  perpetuates  both,  in  placing 
the  government  upon  the  basis  contemplated  by  the  Constitution 
and  by  the  Fathers  of  this  Republic.1 

Attention  was  called  to  the  closeness  of  elections,  and  it  was 
asserted  that  a  change  of  less  than  39,000  votes  out  of  an  ag 
gregate  of  over  3,000,000  would  have  elected  General  Scott 
instead  of  Mr.  Pierce  in  1852.  In  fourteen  States  having  152 
electoral  votes,  the  foreign  vote  was  shown  to  be  258,548,  and 
Pierce's  majority  120,094 — -the  inference  to  be  drawn  being 
that  a  great  preponderance  of  native  American  votes  went  to 
Scott. 

The  agitation  of  such  questions  in  a  country  with  a  great 
and  constantly  increasing  foreign  population  could  not  but 
lead  to  serious  social  disturbances.  Intolerance  begets  vio 
lence.  In  Cincinnati  there  was  an  unfortunate  conflict  be 
tween  the  Germans  and  the  Americans  known  as  the  "Battle 
of  the  Rhine,"2  the  effect  of  which  lasted  for  years.  The 
Germans  were  among  the  staunchest  citizens,  and  when  a  real 
war  came  they  proved  their  patriotism  on  every  field  of  battle. 
The  "Americans  "  in  1853  and  1854  controlled  the  results 
in  several  States.  The  important  States  of  Massachusetts, 
New  York,  Ohio  and  Indiana  were  included.  In  Ohio,  in 
1853,  the  candidate  of  the  opposition  for  Supreme  Judge  re- 
Speech  of  Nathaniel  P.  Banks, 'Appendix  Cong.  Globe,  1855,  p.  52.  Despite 
Mr.  Banks's  friendliness,  he  was  persistently  opposed  by  many  American  mem 
bers  during  the  contest  for  Speaker.  See  also  speech  of  Garrett  Davis  in  Ken 
tucky  constitutional  convention.  Pamphlet,  p.  33. 

2  The  canal  (Rhine)  marking  the  line  of  division  between  the  German  and 
the  American  citizens. 


The  Settlement  of  Kansas  185 

ceived  a  majority  of  eighty  thousand  votes.  The  repeal  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise  brought  about  a  union  of  Whigs, 
Free  Soilers,  Anti-Administration  Democrats  and  Americans 
in  all  of  the  Northern  States  under  the  name  of  the  Anti- 
Nebraska  party,  which  effected  radical  changes  in  both 
branches  of  Congress.  The  Michigan  convention  held  on  the 
6th  of  July,  1854,  christened  the  party  of  that  State  "Repub 
lican,"  and  a  week  later  conventions  in  Ohio  and  Wisconsin 
made  use  of  the  same  apt  name.  But  Anti-Nebraska  con 
tinued  to  be  more  generally  used  by  those  in  favor  of  the 
restoration  of  the  Missouri  restriction.  That  was  the  ostensi 
ble  issue  of  the  political  contest  for  the  next  six  years,  which 
seemed  to  consolidate  into  a  great  party  elements  heretofore 
antagonistic.  "There  can  be  no  doubt,"  said  the  New  York 
Times?  "that  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  has  done 
more  than  any  event  of  the  last  ten  years  to  strengthen  anti- 
slavery  sentiment  in  the  free  States." 

When  the  Kansas-Nebraska  organic  law  was  passed  on  the 
3  1st  of  May,  there  was  not  one  white  inhabitant  lawfully 
within  the  territory.  Within  the  State  of  Missouri  on  the 
border  were  several  thousand  2  waiting  for  the  opening,  but 
fewer  entered  as  bona  fide  settlers  than  promised.  There  was 
a  movement  all  over  the  North,  stimulated  by  public  meetings 
and  associations,  to  obtain  homesteads  in  the  new  country, 
which  was  grossly  misrepresented  by  politicians  and  made  the 
occasion  for  a  shameful  attack  on  the  people  of  the  Northern 
States  by  the  President.  The  New  England  Emigrant  Com 
pany  came  in  for  a  larger  share  of  credit  than  its  work  war 
ranted.  It  was  but  a  single  instrumentality.  Emigrants 
associated  themselves  together  for  convenience  and  economy, 
and  formed  settlements  of  those  who  had  similar  customs  and 
tastes.  From  Kentucky  a  company  of  seventy  went  out  pro 
vided  with  every  convenience,  including  several  ready-made 
houses.  The  members  of  the  association  paid  their  own  ex 
penses,  and  before  embarking  formed  a  constitution  and 

1  May  29,  1854. 

1  Said  to  be  from  10,000  to  15,000  by  one  of  the  friends  of  the  bill  in  debate. 


UN 


1 86  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

by-laws,1  to  which  they  severally  subscribed.  They  were  all 
free  State  men.  Similar  associations  were  formed  in  many  of 
the  States,  and  in  every  instance  they  followed  the  policy  first 
successfully  put  in  operation  in  the  settlement  of  Kentucky 
and  Ohio.  This  simultaneous  and  natural  movement  to 
acquire  new  homes  met  with  defiance  in  western  Missouri, 
before  one  of  the  Eastern  emigrants  had  reached  Kansas.  On 
the  2Oth  day  of  June,  nineteen  days  after  the  opening  of  the 
territory,  "The  Platte  County  Self-Defensive  Association" 
assembled  at  Weston,  and  declared  by  resolution  that  "when 
called  upon  by  any  citizen  of  Kansas,  its  members  would  hold 
themselves  in  readiness  to  assist  in  removing  any  and  all  emi 
grants  who  should  go  there  under  the  aid  of  Northern  emigrant 
societies" — a  promise  they  afterwards  frequently  attempted 
to  make  good.  The  work  of  force  and  fraud  was  now  prose 
cuted  with  great  vigor.  The  equality  of  representation  in  the 
Senate  was  to  be  secured  to  the  South  by  making  Kansas  a 
slave  State,  which,  moreover,  incidentally  would  increase  the 
value  of  the  slave  property  of  Missouri.  The  eighteen  coun 
ties  of  Missouri  lying  on  or  near  the  border  contained  a  popu 
lation  of  about  fifty  thousand  blacks,  worth  at  current  prices 
$25,000,000.  With  a  free  State  adjoining  on  the  west,  the 
owners  felt  their  property  would  be  unsafe  and  almost  value 
less.2 

Andrew  H.  Reeder  of  Pennsylvania,  who  received  the  ap 
pointment  of  Governor,  did  not  reach  Fort  Leavenworth  until 
the  /th  of  October.  After  visiting  the  different  settlements, 
he  divided  the  territory  into  districts  and  established  the 
executive  department  of  government.  At  an  election  held 
November  2Qth,  in  which  seventeen  hundred  and  twenty-nine 
Missourians  particip^tedT  J.  Whitfield,  Indian  Agent,  was 
elected  Congress  debate.  'The  s~u£ce^  of  this  raid  embold 
ened  the  Missourians  to  give  the  citizens  of  Kansas  a  Legisla- 

1  Published  in  The  Type  of  the  Tdmes,  Cincinnati,  March  3,  1855,  under  the 
caption  "  The  Kentucky-Kansas  Association." 

3  Proceedings  of  Convention  at  Lexington  (Mo.).     Cincinnati  Gazette,  July  21, 

1855. 


The  Settlement  of  Kansas  187 

ture  of  their  own  selection  at  the  election  March  30,  1855. 
Five  thousand  armed  men  invaded  the  territory,  took  posses 
sion  of  the  several  polling  places,  intimidated  the  residents, 
and  cast  nearly  eighty  per  cent,  of  the  six  thousand  three 
hundred  and  seven  votes  polled.1  The  election  was  fraudulent 
and  ought  to  have  been  set  aside  by  the  Governor.2  He 
ordered  a  new  election  in  six  districts,  from  which  eleven  free 
State  men  were  returned,  but  the  pro-slavery  majority  disre 
garded  the  Governor's  certificates  and  seated  the  persons  first 
returned.  As  organized,  the  Legislature  contained  a  solitary 
free  State  member,  who  shortly  after  resigned. 

The  Legislature  adjourned  from  Pawnee,  which  had  been 
designated  by  the  Governor  as  the  place  of  meeting,  to  Shaw- 
nee  Mission,  and  there  completed  the  enactment  of  laws  that 
filled  a  volume  of  eight  hundred  and  twenty-three  pages.  A 
slave  code  was  provided,  which  was  strengthened  by  "an  act 
to  punish  offences  against  slave  property" — the  most  flagrant 
invasion  of  the  personal-liberty  clauses  of  the  Constitution 
ever  attempted  even  in  support  of  the  American  system  of 
barbarism.  It  provided  the  penalty  of  death  for  every  person 
convicted  of  raising  or  assisting  in  raising  "an  insurrection  of 
slaves,  free  negroes  or  mulattoes";  and  for  every  person  who 
by  speaking,  writing,  printing  or  circulating  any  book,  paper, 
magazine  or  circular,  for  the  purpose  of  exciting  insurrection 
on  the  part  of  slaves,  free  blacks  or  mulattoes.  In  case  of 
conviction  for  enticing  a  slave  to  run  away,  or  concealing  or 
harboring  a  slave,  the  penalty  was  either  death  or  imprison 
ment  for  not  less  than  ten  years.  For  resisting  an  officer 
engaged  in  arresting  a  slave  two  years'  imprisonment  was  pro 
vided,  and  for  refusing  to  become  a  slave-catcher  a  bystander 
could  be  mulcted  in  the  sum  of  five  hundred  dollars. 

To  effect  the  complete  suppression  of  freedom  of  speech  and 
of  the  press,  two  sections  were  provided  declaring  it  to  be  a 

1  Kansas  :    The  Prelude  to  the  War  for  the  Union,  p.  45. 

2  Governor  Reeder  yielded  to  intimidation  and  issued  certificates  to  the  border 
ruffians  who  were  capable  of  murdering  him  if  thwarted  in  their  purpose.     See 
testimony  in  Report  of  House  Committee  of  Investigation,  1856. 


1 88  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

felony,  the  punishment  for  which  was  imprisonment  at  hard 
labor,  to  print,  write,  publish  or  circulate  any  book,  paper, 
pamphlet  or  circular  containing  any  statement,  argument, 
opinion,  sentiment  or  doctrine  calculated  to  produce  disaffec 
tion  among  the  slaves  in  the  territory,  or  denying  the  right 
of  persons  to  hold  slaves.  And  finally,  to  insure  the  convic 
tion  beyond  a  peradventure  of  any  one  accused  of  violating 
the  law,  all  persons  conscientiously  opposed  to  holding  slaves, 
or  not  admitting  the  right,  were  prohibited  from  sitting  as 
jurors  on  the  trial  of  any  prosecution  under  the  act. 

Officers  and  attorneys  were  required  to  be  sworn  to  support 
the  organic  law  of  the  territory,  and  the  fugitive  slave  laws. 
If  any  person  entitled  to  vote  should  refuse  to  take  an  oath  to 
sustain  the  fugitive  slave  laws,  he  should  not  be  permitted  to 
vote — an  ingenious  method  for  disfranchising  Eastern  immi 
grants.  No  time  of  residence  was  necessary  to  entitle  one  to 
vote,  thus  providing  in  effect  that  the  people  of  a  neighboring 
State  could  enter  the  territory  and  after  a  stay  of  an  hour  or 
so,  and  by  paying  a  poll  tax  of  one  dollar,  could  exercise  the 
same  privilege  as  a  bona-fide  resident. 

One  of  the  most  useful  instruments  in  the  work  which  the 
administration  had  undertaken  in  Kansas  was  Samuel  Dexter 
Lecompte,  who  had  received  the  appointment  of  Chief  Justice. 
He  was  from  Maryland  and  bore  the  name  of  a  famous  New 
Englander,  which,  however,  did  not  serve  to  modify  his  zeal 
in  behalf  of  wrong  or  influence  him  to  respect  the  just  prin 
ciples  of  his  profession.  In  reward  for  his  support  on  the 
bench,  the  fraudulent  Legislature,  while  distributing  local  fran 
chises,  did  not  overlook  the  Chief  Justice,  who  became  an 
incorporator  in  some  of  the  most  valuable  railroad  organiza 
tions.  The  provision  of  the  general  corporation  law  providing 
for  alteration  or  repeal  of  special  charters  was  made  inopera 
tive  as  to  the  Lecompte  corporations;  and  the  sections  making 
stockholders  and  directors  liable  for  debts  were  suspended  for 
the  benefit  of  Judge  Lecompte.1 

These,  then,  were  the  first-fruits  of  Douglas's  great  principle 

1  Speech  of  Schuyler  Colfax,  June  21,  1856,  Cong.  Globe. 


The  Settlement  of  Kansas  189 

of  "popular  sovereignty,"  under  the  zealous  administration  of 
his  friend  Senator  Atchison  of  Missouri,1  and  John  H.  String- 
fellow,  who  had  been  made  Speaker  of  the  territorial  House. 
There  was  no  power  to  hold  in  check  the  desperate  ruffians  of 
the  border,  and  give  protection  to  honest  settlers  seeking 
homes  and  the  rights  of  citizenship  under  the  organic  act,  for 
the  President  had  made  the  conspiracy  to  fasten  slavery  upon 
Kansas  an  administration  policy.  He  shared  with  Atchison 
and  Stringfellow  the  responsibility  for  the  destruction  of  ballot 
boxes,  for  false  oaths,  for  the  conflagrations  and  bloodshed 
that  attended  the  setting  up  of  a  fraudulent  Legislature  to  force 
upon  a  free  people  institutions  they  abhorred.  Well  might 
good  men  then  despair  for  the  future  peace  of  the  country. 
"For  if  they  do  these  things  in  a  green  tree,  what  shall  be 
done  in  the  dry?  " 

Governor  Reeder,  astounded  by  the  open  violence  daily 
practised,  and  by  the  disregard  of  his  official  opinions,  went  to 
Washington  to  find  out  whether  he  was  to  be  Governor  of 
Kansas  de  facto  or  only  de  jure,  and  whether  the  administra 
tion  would  sustain  him  in  the  proper  discharge  of  the  duties  of 
his  office.  He  was  received  with  coldness  and  rebuked  with 
severity.  He  soon  learned  that  the  fatal  blunder  he  made  in 
giving  certificates  to  a  majority  of  the  Legislature  elected  by 
the  border  ruffians,  even  though  committed  under  duress, 
would  be  cited  by  the  President  and  the  Attorney-General  to 
prove  the  legality  of  that  body  and  the  regularity  of  its  pro 
ceedings.  What  cared  the  President  for  the  wishes  of  a 
majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  Kansas,  since  they  ran  counter 
to  his  own?  He  had  been  served  with  notice — a  notice  he  felt 
bound  to  respect — that  if  he  pronounced  the  dissolution  of 
the  Legislature  and  commanded  Governor  Reeder  to  carry  out 
his  will,  he  would  find  a  hornets'  nest  about  his  ears.  Neither 
the  President,  the  Governor  nor  anybody  else  had  any  right 
to  interfere  with  the  functions  of  the  Legislature.2 

1  Atchison  boasted  that  he  had  personally  led  hundreds  of  ^armed  men  into  Kan 
sas,  yet  Douglas  defended  the  character  of  Atchison  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate. 

2  St.  Louis  Republican. 


190  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Governor  Reeder  returned  only  to  be  further  humiliated,  to 
be  removed  presently,  and  to  find  himself  thrown  into  associa 
tion  with  the  free  State  settlers,  who  decided  to  resist  the 
tyranny  of  an  alien  Legislature. 

Secretary  Woodson,  a  pro-slavery  man,  became  acting  Gov 
ernor  upon  Reeder's  deposition,  and  signed  the  laws  passed 
by  the  fraudulent  Legislature.  He  was  relieved  on  the  3d 
of  September  by  Governor  Wilson  Shannon  of  Ohio,  who 
entered  the  territory  accompanied  by  the  triumphant  Mis- 
sourians.  Shannon  was  a  man  of  very  moderate  ability,  who 
had  been  elected  Governor  of  Ohio  in  1842  by  a  few  hundred 
votes  over  the  brilliant  Thomas  Corwin,  who  suffered  for  the 
sins  of  John  Tyler.  He  was  first  and  always  a  Democrat,  and 
he  was  appointed  by  the  President  because  of  his  devotion  to 
party  and  his  yielding  disposition. 

The  effusive  attention  paid  to  Governor  Shannon  by  the 
pro-slavery  leaders  of  Weston,  Atchison  Leavenworth  and 
Shawnee  Mission,  gratified  his  vanity  and  won  him  to  their 
cause.  He  announced  with  indecent  haste  the  legality  of  the 
Legislature  chosen  by  the  border  ruffians  and  his  purpose  to 
enforce  the  laws  passed  by  it.  He  presided  at  a  "Law  and 
Order"  meeting  held  at  Leavenworth  on  the  I4th  of  Novem 
ber,  and  heard  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the  territory  de 
nounced  as  guilty  of  "nullification,  rebellion  and  treason/' 
without  recognizing,  apparently,  the  indelicacy  of  the  execu 
tive  becoming  the  instrument  of  a  faction  in  the  midst  of  civil 
commotion. 

There  were  fair-minded  people  in  the  South  who  did  not 
view  the  situation  in  Kansas  with  the  complacency  of  Governor 
Shannon ;  who  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  outrages  that 
had  been  committed  by  Atchison,  Stringfellow  and  the  Mis 
souri  borderers  generally  were  a  disgrace  to  the  country  and 
the  age;  that  they  "would  be  the  means  of  defeating  the 
object  which  the  authors  of  the  organic  law  had  exclusively  in 
view — the  organization  of  Kansas  as  a  slave  State." 

No  one  can  honestly  justify  [said  the  New  Orleans  Bulletin\,  or 


The  Settlement  of  Kansas  191 

even  extenuate,  the  outrages  and  violations,  not  merely  of  law,  but 
of  those  conventional  observances  which  exist  in  the  most  rude  and 
primitive  societies,  which  have  been  disgracing  a  territory  under 
the  United  States  government  for  the  past  six  months.  But  this 
negative  condemnation  is  not  enough;  there  should  be  direct  and 
emphatic  denunciation  of  this  condition  of  affairs.  The  class  of 
citizens  who  are  the  friends  of  law  and  order,  who  deprecate  the 
supremacy  of  mobs  and  lawless  assemblages,  and  who  desire  to  see 
the  people  exercise  freely  and  peaceably  the  rights  and  privileges 
to  which  they  are  entitled,  should  set  their  faces  against  the  dom 
ination  of  reckless  and  irresponsible  power. 

The  meeting  over  which  Governor  Shannon  presided,  in 
palliation  of  the  drastic  provisions  of  the  gag  law,  which  ran 
counter  to  the  prejudices  of  a  free  people,  declared  :  "To  deny 
the  right  of  a  person  to  hold  slaves  under  the  law  in  this  ter 
ritory  is  made  penal ;  but  beyond  this  there  is  no  restriction  to 
the  discussion  of  the  slavery  question,  in  any  aspect  in  which  it  is 
capable  of  being  considered. ' ' 

In  further  contempt  of  the  popular-sovereignty  principle  of 
the  organic  act,  the  Legislature  created  all  offices  and  filled 
them,  or  appointed  officers  to  fill  them  for  long  periods;  and 
fixed  the  dates  for  future  elections  so  that  there  could  be  no 
change  in  the  laws  or  offices  until  the  session  of  the  Legisla 
ture  of  1858,  however  much  the  inhabitants  of  the  territory 
might  desire  a  change.1 

The  people  of  Kansas,  thus  deprived  of  any  voice  in  the 
organization  of  the  territory;  oppressed  by  a  government 
created  by  force  and  fraud ;  their  property  and  lives  placed  in 
jeopardy,  and  their  respectful  petition  for  redress  of  griev 
ances  treated  with  contempt  by  the  national  administration, 
saw  no  source  of  relief  but  in  the  formation  of  a  State  govern 
ment,  and  the  acceptance  and  ratification  thereof  by  Congress. 
They  proceeded  in  conformity  to  precedents,  and  in  an  orderly 
manner  asserted  their  constitutional  rights  as  American  citi 
zens.  After  they  had  ratified  the  constitution,  completed  the 

1  Minority  Report  of  Senate  Committee  on  Territories,  March  12,  1856. 


i92  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

State  organization  their  delegates  had  made  at  Topeka,  and 
chosen  a  Representative  and  two  Senators,  they  made  a  formal 
application  to  Congress  for  the  admission  of  Kansas  into  the 
Union  of  States.  Meantime  the  Legislature  adjourned  to 
July  4,  1856,  to  await  the  action  of  Congress. 

This,  then,  was  the  situation  at  the  opening  of  the  great 
political  campaign  of  1856.  The  ill-advised  act  of  striking 
down  the  Missouri  Compromise  had  resulted  in  new  political 
combinations,  in  the  capture  of  the  popular  branch  of  Congress 
by  the  anti-Nebraska  party,  and  in  the  election  of  Nathaniel 
P.  Banks,  Jr.,  of  Massachusetts,  Speaker,  after  an  extraordi 
nary  struggle  during  which  all  efforts  to  break  the  ranks  of  the 
new  party  proved  unavailing.  The  Democrats  were  compelled 
to  abandon  William  A.  Richardson,  their  caucus  nominee,  and 
to  vote  for  William  Aiken  of  South  Carolina,  who  was  ac 
ceptable  to  a  majority  of  the  Southern  Americans — Henry 
Winter  Davis  of  Maryland  and  Mr.  Cullen  of  Delaware  de 
clining  to  vote.  This  was  the  first  distinct  victory  of  the 
free  States  over  the  consolidated  power  of  the  South  in  the 
history  of  the  government,  and  when  the  oath  of  office  was 
administered  to  the  Speaker  by  Joshua  R.  Giddings,  as  the 
oldest  member  of  the  Thirty-fourth  Congress,  the  spectators 
recognized  the  dawning  of  a  new  era.  In  the  Thirty-fourth 
Congress  new  men  appear,  who  are  to  become  conspicuous 
in  the  annals  of  the  country,  in  shaping  its  destiny  and  in 
grappling  with  the  complicated  questions  arising  with  ominous 
frequency.  In  the  Senate  the  minority  are  reinforced  by 
Lyman  Trumbull,  Jacob  Collamer,  Henry  Wilson,  James 
Harlan,  Lafayette  S.  Foster,  James  Bell  and  Charles  Durkee. 
John  P.  Hale  returns  to  witness  the  downfall  of  his  old  enemy, 
Franklin  Pierce;  John  J.  Crittenden  reappears  to  uphold  the 
conservative  unionism  of  the  defunct  Whig  party.  George 
E.  Pugh,  who  takes  the  place  of  Salmon  P.  Chase,  proves  a 
brilliant  debater  and  a  champion  of  the  political  fortunes  of 
Stephen  A.  Douglas.  The  free  States  having  abandoned  the 
administration,  Gwin  fails  to  be  returned  from  California. 
In  the  House,  John  Sherman  enters  upon  a  public  career 


Banks  Elected  Speaker 

almost  unexampled  in  duration  and  usefulness,  and  associated 
with  him  are  Justin  S.  Morrill,  John  A.  Bingham,  the  three 
Washburn  brothers,  Anson  Burlingame,  Valentine  B.  Hor- 
ton,  Galusha  A.  Grow,  Francis  P.  Blair,  Jr.,  and  Francis  E. 
Spinner,  representing  Northern  sentiment;  Emerson  Etheridge 
representing  the  Union  sentiment  of  the  middle  South;  and 
John  A.  Quitman,  William  Barksdale  and  Preston  S.  Brooks, 
the  secession  movement  of  the  extreme  South.  These  politi 
cal  divisions  are  to  continue,  and  these  actors,  joined  by  others 
later  on,  are  to  participate  in  the  great  tragedy  the  prelude  to 
which,  on  the  plains  of  Kansas,  at  present  is  engrossing  the 
attention  of  twenty-six  millions  of  people. 

VOL.  I. — 13. 


CHAPTER   VII 

ATTITUDE   OF   THE   COURTS 

THE  attempt  to  establish  a  national  party  that  should 
ignore  the  sectional  issues,  the  aspiration  of  a  few 
patriotic  citizens,  quickly  proved  a  failure.  The  Amer 
ican  party  could  no  more  check  the  moral  sentiment  of 
Christendom  than  King  Cnut  the  flow  of  the  sea.  The  oppos 
ing  forces  advanced  irresistibly  to  conflict,  and  crushed  the 
American  as  they  had  the  Whig  party.  When  the  representa 
tives  of  that  party  met  in  convention  in  Philadelphia,  June  5, 
1855,  there  was  a  division  on  the  sectional  question  which 
proved  to  be  irreconcilable,  and  the  minority,  refusing  to  be 
bound  by  a  declaration  "that  Congress  ought  not  to  legislate 
upon  the  subject  of  slavery  within  the  territories  of  the 
United  States,"  withdrew  and  published  a  temperate  address 
to  the  people.  This  faction  cooperated  with  the  anti- 
Nebraska  party,  and  later  was  absorbed  by  the  new  Republican 
party. 

This  change  came  about  more  quickly  in  Ohio,  where  there 
was  less  diversity  of  sentiment  than  in  any  other  of  the  great 
States.  In  Massachusetts  the  Know-Nothings  defeated  the 
Republican  candidate  for  Governor  in  1855,  but  they  failed  in 
Ohio,  where  there  was  early  a  patriotic  yielding  of  party  pre< 
dilections,  and  where  the  issues  were  sharply  presented.  Suc 
cessful  cooperation,  however,  was  not  effected  without  the 
tactful  interposition  of  the  most  eminent  citizens  of  the  State, 
who  set  an  example  worthy  of  imitation  in  great  emergencies. 
The  candidacy  of  Mr.  Chase,  for  Governor,  revived  the  politi- 

194 


Chase  Elected  Governor  of  Ohio          195 

cal  bitterness  of  other  days  when  the  votes  of  Liberty  men 
served  the  interests  of  the  opponents  of  Corwin  and  Clay. 
Some  of  the  old  Whig  friends  of  the  latter,  moved  by  the  elo 
quence  of  Judge  Johnston,  cast  24,310  votes  for  Allen  Trinble, 
which  represented  the  irreconcilables.  Within  the  anti-Neb 
raska  party  there  was  a  sharp  contest  between  the  different 
elements  for  supremacy,  but  the  Free  Soil  Whigs  and  Free 
Democrats  constituted  a  majority,  and  they  united  in  support 
of  Mr.  Chase  on  his  record  in  the  Senate  in  opposition  to  the 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  The  Americans,  to  whom 
were  given  the  offices  of  lieutenant-governor  and  supreme 
judge,  however,  were  held  to  the  support  of  Mr.  Chase,  who 
had  frankly  opposed  a  prescriptive  policy,  only  through  the 
strenuous  efforts  and  good  faith  of  their  leaders,  who  held 
that  the  restoration  of  the  Missouri  restriction  was  the  para 
mount  question  of  the  day. 

The  Ohio  campaign  was  of  national  importance,  as  upon 
the  issues  presented  hung  the  determination  of  the  practica 
bility  of  consolidating  the  various  elements  of  opposition  into 
a  great  party  to  contest  the  field  with  the  Democracy.  If 
Ohio  could  be  carried  for  Chase,  the  whole  North  could  be 
consolidated. 

Events  which  will  be  referred  to  below  influenced  the  action 
of  this  convention  in  a  matter  of  grave  moment.  The  follow 
ing  resolution  was  adopted : 

Resolved,  That  the  people  who  constitute  the  supreme  power  in 
the  United  States  should  guard  with  jealous  care  the  rights  of  the 
several  States  as  independent  governments.  No  encroachments 
upon  their  legislative  or  judicial  prerogatives  should  be  permitted 
from  any  quarter. 

In  accepting  the  nomination  Mr.  Chase  gave  an  imperative 
meaning  to  this  resolution,  which  revealed  his  purpose  in  case 
of  election  :  "The  independence  and  sovereignty  of  the  State," 
said  he,  "in  her  legislation  and  judiciary,  must  be  asserted  and 
maintained. ' '  With  a  Governor  and  a  Legislature  like-minded, 


A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

a  conflict  with  the  power  that  maintained  the  supremacy  of 
the  fugitive  slave  act  was  inevitable.1 

The  Southern  extremists  continued  to  force  the  rugged  issue 
on  the  North  as  Calhoun  had  advised,2  and  fugitive  cases 
were  prosecuted  with  rigorous  severity,  the  United  States 
marshals  too  often  proving  brutal  instruments  of  the  law, 
which  received  new  interpretations  from  over-zealous  judges. 
The  successful  prosecution  of  each  new  case  seemed  to  hedge 
about  the  system  of  human  bondage  with  ever-increasing 
sanctity,  making  it  superior  to  the  Constitution  itself.  Thus 
Judge  Grier  in  the  Kauffman  case  in  effect  denied  to  Penn 
sylvania  the  power  of  excluding  slavery  from  her  territory. 
The  slaves  had  been  carried  into  that  State  by  the  voluntary 
act  of  the  claimants,  and  their  status,  the  court  held,  depended 
on  the  law  of  Maryland,  and  not  on  that  of  Pennsylvania.3 

In  1852  Jonathan  Lemmon  of  Virginia,  designing  to  emi 
grate  with  his  slaves  to  Texas,  found  it  convenient  to  embark 
from  the  city  of  New  York.  Mr.  Lemmon  and  his  eight 
slaves  were  taken  before  Judge  Paine,  of  the  Superior  Court 
of  the  city  of  New  York,  by  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and  the 
cause  of  the  restraint  of  the  slaves  inquired  into.  The  plea 
of  respondent  was  that  they  were  his  slaves,  in  right  of  his 
wife,  who  was  removing  to  another  State,  and  that  she  had 

1  "  The  people  [of  Ohio]  under  the  guidance  of  honest  and  high-souled  men 
from  these  old  parties  have  associated  themselves  as  Republicans  into  a  league  of 
defence  for  the  protection  of  the  State  rights  and  their  individual  liberties." — New 
York  Times,  July  16,  1855. 

2  Letter,  Oct.  3,  1847,  to  Percy  Walker,  first  published  in  the  Charleston  Mer 
cury ,  June,  1855  ;  in  New  York  Times,  June  27th. 

3  The  case  of  Shadrach  S.  Oliver  and  others  vs.  Daniel  Kauffman  and  others, 
1852.     Judge  Grier  said  :   "In  the  case  now  before  the  Court  it  is  contended  that 
the  slaves  became  free  by  the  act  of  the  plaintiffs  in  voluntarily  bringing  them 
into  the  State  of  Pennsylvania.     This  question  depends  upon  the  law  of  Maryland, 
and  not  of  Pennsylvania."     The  opinion  of  the  courts  of  Kentucky,   Louisiana 
and  other  Southern  States  in  numerous  cases  was  the  opposite  of  Judge  Grier's. 
In  the  same  decision,  Judge  Grier  said  of  Lord  Mansfield's  famous  opinion  in  the 
Somerset  case,  1772,  that  the  "  pretty  things"  uttered  by  Lord  Mansfield  should 
be  "  classed  with  rhetorical  flourishes  rather  than  legal  dogmas."     A  verdict  of 
$2500  was  given  against  Kauffman  for  having  given  food  to  colored  persons  who 
were  not  fugitives  in  a  legal  sense. 


Slave  Cases  in  Court  197 

no  intention  of  bringing  them  into  the  State  of  New  York  to 
remain.  The  point  of  law  distinctly  presented  was,  whether 
a  slave,  brought  into  New  York  by  his  master  or  mistress, 
could  for  one  moment  remain  a  slave,  and  as  such  be  taken 
into  a  slave  State,  or  whether  he  was  not  in  a  condition  of 
freedom,  and,  like  every  other  free  man,  entitled  to  protection 
in  the  enjoyment  of  that  freedom.  Judge  Paine,  following 
precedents  in  both  Southern  and  Northern  courts,  directed 
the  liberation  of  the  slaves.1 

A  few  months  later  Judge  Crenshaw  of  the  Kentucky  Court 
of  Appeals  delivered  an  elaborate  opinion,  affirming  the  de 
cision  of  the  lower  court  liberating  Clarissa,  a  slave,  who  was 
permitted  by  her  mistress  to  accompany  Mrs.  Alexander  to 
Philadelphia  and  remain  there  more  than  six  months.2  Clarissa 
returned  to  Kentucky  with  Mrs.  Alexander,  and  on  being 
sold,  instituted  a  suit  for  her  freedom.  The  case  of  Dred 
Scott,  which  will  be  considered  hereafter,  involved  the  same 
question,  and  was  decided  in  the  same  way  by  one  of  the 
courts  of  Missouri. 

But  Judge  Kane  of  the  United  States  Court  of  eastern 
Pennsylvania  did  not  hold  this  to  be  good  law.  In  the  case 
of  Passmore  Williamson,  who  had  informed  a  slave  woman 
brought  into  Pennsylvania  by  John  K.  Wheeler  of  North 
Carolina,  that  she  and  her  children  were  no  longer  slaves,  he 
asserted  that  the  law  of  nations  guaranteed  the  right  of  transit 
of  slaves,  and  of  every  other  species  of  property,  through  ter 
ritory  where  slavery  was  not  recognized.  "If  the  contrary 
principle  was  sanctioned,  the  time  might  come  when  the  cotton 
of  Louisiana,  the  rice  of  Carolina  and  rum  of  New  England 
would  be  restricted  from  transportation  without  the  bounds 

1  Citizens  of  New  York  indemnified  Lemmon  in  full.  The  State  of  Virginia 
afterwards  brought  suit  to  test  the  validity  of  the  enfranchisement.  Mr.  O'Conor 
was  retained  to  represent  that  State.  Mr.  Evarts  represented  the  other  side. 
The  case  came  up  for  argument  before  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  January,  1860, 
when  Mr.  Evarts  made  an  argument  that  gained  him  great  reputation. — Memoir 
of  Thurlow  Weed,  vol.  ii.,  p.  323. 

9  The  opinion  was  delivered  in  the  January  term,  1853.  The  case  had  been  in 
court  for  several  years. 


A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

of  the  State  producing  them."  He  knew  of  no  statute  of 
Pennsylvania  divesting  the  rights  of  property  of  a  citizen  of 
another  State,  and  if  such  a  law  could  be  shown,  he  was  not 
aware  that  it  could  be  recognized  as  valid  in  a  court  of  the 
United  States. 

Judge  Kane  regarded  slaves  as  property  merely,  whereas 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  under  which  he  de 
rived  his  powers,  regarded  them  as  persons,  and  while  making 
provision  for  the  reclamation  of  slaves  escaping  from  service, 
it  made  none  at  all  for  the  cases  of  slaves  held  to  be  property 
under  the  municipal  law  of  one  State,  sojourning  in  or  passing 
through  the  territory  of  another.  But  the  constitution  of 
Pennsylvania  prohibited  slavery  within  the  State  limits,  and 
that  prohibition  was  unlimited  except  as  it  was  modified  by  the 
clause  of  the  national  Constitution  relating  to  fugitives.  Could 
a  judge  of  the  United  States  Court  add  another  limitation  and 
say  that  slavery  might  exist  in  Pennsylvania  for  the  conven 
ience  of  temporary  sojourners?  If  he  could  give  the  system 
life  for  one  minute,  he  could  for  an  hour,  for  weeks,  and  so 
could  place  the  sovereignty  of  Pennsylvania  prostrate  beneath 
the  heel  of  judicial  power.1 

In  Ohio  "dire  was  the  noise  of  conflict."  Sharp  collision 
between  the  State  and  United  States  tribunals  had  challenged 
public  sentiment  to  quick  decision.  It  sustained  the  position 
taken  by  the  State  convention  of  the  I3th  of  July,  that  the 
sovereignty  of  the  State  in  her  legislation  and  judiciary  must 
be  asserted  and  maintained.  The  case  that  precipitated  this 
decision  is  one  of  the  most  notable  in  the  history  of  the  sec 
tional  controversy. 

In  the  month  of  March,  1855,  the  Rev.  Henry  M.  Dennison 
of  Louisville,  Ky.,  placed  Rosetta,  a  slave,  in  care  of  a  friend 

1  On  Williamson  replying  to  the  interrogatory  of  the  court  that  the  slaves  were 
not  in  his  custody  or  control,  Judge  Kane  sent  him  to  jail  for  contempt.  When 
Jane  Johnson,  the  escaped  woman,  herself  appeared  before  the  court  and  moved 
for  the  discharge  of  Williamson,  the  judge  refused  to  recognize  that  she  had  any 
status  in  court.  Three  months  later,  on  Williamson  putting  his  reply  in  different 
form  at  the  suggestion  of  the  court,  he  was  discharged.  This  outrage  on  personal 
liberty  won  for  Judge  Kane  the  title  of  the  American  Jeffreys. 


Conflict  of  Jurisdiction  199 

to  be  taken  to  Virginia.  The  friend  left  the  boat  at  Cincinnati 
and  proceeded  by  way  of  Columbus,  where  he  was  detained 
over  Sunday.  The  girl  was  aided  in  her  wish  to  be  free  by 
friends  of  her  own  race,  who  caused  her  to  be  taken  by  writ 
of  habeas  corpus  before  Judge  Jamison  of  the  Probate  Court, 
who  adjudged  her  to  be  free,  and  appointed  Mr.  Van  Slyke,  a 
well-known  citizen,  her  guardian.  The  owner  obtained  a  war 
rant  from  Commissioner  Pendery,  which  was  served  by  the 
marshal,  who  carried  the  girl  to  Cincinnati.  Upon  a  habeas 
corpus  issued  by  Judge  Parker  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas 
of  Hamilton  County,  the  alleged  fugitive  was  discharged  from 
the  custody  of  the  marshal. 

I  appeared  in  behalf  of  Rosetta  [said  Mr.  Chase] ;  Judge  Timothy 
Walker,  one  of  the  most  eminent  and  respected  members  of  the  bar, 
and  Mr.  R.  B.  Hayes,  a  young  lawyer  of  great  promise,  appeared 
with  me;  while  Mr.  Pugh  and  Judge  Flynn  appeared  on  behalf  of 
Mr.  Dennison.  The  case  was  thoroughly  argued,  and  the  court 
ordered  that  Rosetta,  having  been  brought  into  Ohio  by  the  master 
or  his  agent,  was  free  and  should  be  delivered  to  the  custody  of  her 
guardian.1 

This  was  in  accordance  with  numerous  precedents.  But  the 
able  opinion  of  the  court  contained  two  propositions  which 
properly  belong  in  any  account  of  the  conflict  of  jurisdiction 
then  in  progress: 

That  upon  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  issued  by  the  courts  of  the  State, 
the  court  might  and  would  look  into  the  legality  of  the  detention 
of  persons  held  under  process  of  a  United  States  court,  and  if  such 
detention  were  found  to  be  illegal,  would  grant  a  discharge  there 
from. 

That  under  the  constitution  of  Ohio  the  alleged  right  of  transit 
with  slave  property  through  the  State  did  not  exist.  Slavery  could 
have  no  existence  beyond  the  territory  where  established  by  law, 
which  law  could  not  be  carried  beyond  the  territory  of  its  enactment. 
This  rule  did  not  interfere  with  the  fugitive  slave  act,  for  that  con 
templated  an  escape  and  not  the  consent  of  the  master. 
1  Letter  of  Salmon  P.  Chase  to  J.  T.  Trowbridge. 


200  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

It  was  believed  that  the  principle  of  the  habeas  corpus  could 
not  be  abandoned  without  a  sacrifice  of  State  sovereignty,  and 
an  abdication  by  the  State  of  its  highest  prerogative,  that  of 
protecting  its  citizens. 

As  was  feared,  Rosetta  was  again  arrested  by  the  marshal 
upon  another  warrant,  and  taken  before  Commissioner  Pen- 
dery,  who  heard  arguments  for  and  against  the  claim  of  her 
alleged  master.  The  fact  was  established  by  the  evidence 
that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dennison  had  an  interview  with  Rosetta  in 
Columbus  in  the  presence  of  her  guardian  and  others,  and  gave 
her  her  choice  of  returning  with  him  or  remaining  free. 
When  she  elected  to  be  free,  he  formally  assented  to  her  de 
cision,  and  bade  her  good-bye,  saying  he  should  probably 
never  see  her  again.  After  this  he  caused  her  arrest  as  a  fugi 
tive.  His  violation  of  faith,  said  Mr.  Hayes,  in  "despising  his 
pledged  word  and  suing  out  a  writ  that  she  was  a  fugitive,  was 
worse  than  the  most  ultra  fanaticism  of  those  classed  as 
Abolitionists." 

The  parol  manumission  the  claimant  made  of  her  [Mr.  Hayes  con 
tended]  is  good  in  Ohio,  good  in  law,  good  in  morals  (8  Humphrey 
Reports).  A  slave  court  says  that  acts  of  manumission  may  be  in 
ferred  from  the  "acts  and  conduct  of  the  master."  The  acts  of  Mr. 
Dennison  at  Columbus  were  impliedly  and  expressly  to  the  liber 
ation  of  Rosetta. 

The  opinion  was  also  cited  of  a  Southern  judge  of  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court  under  the  law  of  1793,  whose  language 
is  similar  to  the  act  of  1850:  "If  a  slave  go  from  one  State  to 
another  with  the  consent  or  connivance  of  the  master,  it  is  not 
an  escape  under  the  fugitive  slave  clause  "  (4  Wash.  Cir.  Re 
ports,  396).  The  argument  fitted  the  case  and  its  force  was 
recognized  by  the  commissioner  and  opposing  counsel.  The 
girl  was  discharged  from  custody,  and  retained  her  freedom.1 

1  The  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio  in  the  case  of  A.  T.  Brooks  et  al.  vs.  The  State 
of  Ohio,  by  Chief  Justice  Lane,  in  1841,  decided  that  a  slave  brought  into  the 
State  voluntarily  by  his  owner,  became  a  free  man,  and  any  one  interfering  with 
him  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  liberty  committed  an  unlawful  act. 


The  Garner  Case  201 

The  popular  excitement  attending  the  hearings  in  the  differ 
ent  courts  was  intense,  and  an  outbreak  was  feared.  The 
marshal,  with  the  consent  of  the  sheriff,  had  lodged  the  girl 
in  the  jail,  which  gave  rise  to  such  a  feeling  of  indignation 
that  Mr.  Chase,  Mr.  Hayes  and  others  took  measures  to  test 
the  question  whether  the  jail  could  be  used  for  the  incarcera 
tion  of  persons  seized  under  the  fugitive  slave  act,  but  before 
action  could  be  had  the  marshal  removed  her.  While  the  hear 
ing  was  in  progress  before  the  commissioner,  application  was 
made  by  Mr.  Chase  and  Judge  Walker  to  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas  for  process  in  contempt  against  the  marshal,  which  being 
granted  he  was  arrested  by  the  sheriff  and  committed  to  jail. 
Judge  McLean  of  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  issued  a 
writ  of  habeas  corpus  returnable  before  him ;  and  after  full 
argument  on  the  facts  stated,  ordered  the  marshal  to  be  dis 
charged  from  imprisonment.  He  declared  that  the  proceed 
ings  of  Judge  Parker  were  not  only  without  authority  of 
law,  but  against  law,  and  he  was  bound  to  treat  them  as  a 
nullity.  This  decision  was  generally  condemned,  and  by  none 
more  severely  than  by  Mr.  Chase.  It  was  evident  that  the 
conflict  of  jurisdiction  had  reached  such  an  aggravated  state 
that  either  party  might  appeal  to  military  power.  The  sove 
reignty  of  the  State  lay  prostrate ;  the  processes  of  her  courts 
were  defied  by  any  petty  officer  serving  under  the  general 
government ;  and  her  citizens  were  without  protection  against 
the  brutal  and  unlawful  acts  of  such  official. 

Two  weeks  after  Mr.  Chase  was  inaugurated  as  Governor, 
another  case  attended  by  tragic  circumstances,  known  as  the 
Garner  case,  occurred  in  Hamilton  County.  On  the  night  of 
the  2/th  of  January,  1856,  seventeen  slaves  escaped  from 
Boone  and  Kenton  counties,  Kentucky,  to  Ohio.  Nine  of 
them  found  transportation  by  the  "Underground  Railroad," 
and  freed  themselves.  The  others  sought  refuge  at  the  house 
of  a  colored  man  in  Storrs  township.  In  this  party  were 
Simon  Garner  and  wife,  their  son  and  wife  and  three  small 
children,  the  property  of  Archibald  K.  Gaines.  The  slave 
hunters  quickly  found  out  their  place  of  concealment  and 


202  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

attempted  their  arrest.  Resistance  was  made  by  the  younger 
Garner,  and,  before  an  entrance  could  be  effected,  Margaret, 
the  mother  of  the  children,  with  swift  decision,  and  calling 
upon  the  grandmother  to  aid  her,  attempted  to  kill  her 
children  with  a  butcher  knife,  and  actually  did  succeed  in 
killing  one.  At  the  inquest  held  she  acknowledged  that  she 
killed  it,  and  that  her  determination  was  to  kill  all  of  the 
children  and  then  destroy  herself  rather  than  to  return  to 
slavery  and  the  cruel  treatment  and  personal  wrongs  to  which 
she  had  been  subjected. 

Under  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  returnable  before  the  Probate 
Judge  of  the  county,  the  sheriff  took  the  slaves  into  custody, 
and  conveyed  them  to  the  county  jail.  Meanwhile  the  judge 
consulted  the  Governor  and  received  assurances  that  the  pro 
cesses  of  the  State  should  be  enforced.  He  was  authorized  to 
say  to  the  sheriff  that  in  the  performance  of  his  duties  he 
would  be  sustained  by  the  whole  power  at  the  command  of 
the  executive.  For  some  reason,  never  fully  explained,  pro 
ceedings  in  the  Probate  Court  under  the  writ  were  abandoned, 
and  the  sheriff  notified  the  United  States  marshal  that  he  did 
not  regard  the  fugitives  as  in  his  custody. 

The  hearing  before  the  United  States  commissioner  was  also 
postponed,  and  the  grand  jury  having  found  an  indictment 
against  the  two  Garners  and  their  wives  for  the  murder  of  the 
child  Mary,  they  were  again  taken  in  custody  by  the  sheriff. 
The  children  were  considered  in  the  custody  of  the  marshal. 
A  few  days  later  the  marshal  applied  to  Judge  Leavitt  of  the 
United  States  District  Court  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  against 
the  sheriff  for  the  four  persons  indicted, 

for  the  purpose  of  bringing  them  before  him  to  determine,  not 
whether  they  were  unlawfully  deprived  of  liberty,  but  whether  the 
sheriff  was  entitled  to  their  custody  under  the  criminal  process  of 
the  State  rather  than  the  marshal  under  the  slave  act  commissioner's 
warrant.  It  was  a  manifest  abuse  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  thus 
to  convert  it  into  a  summary  replevin;  but  the  counsel  for  the 
sheriff,  one  of  whom  in  conversation  with  the  judge  had  heard  him 
express  the  opinion  that  the  prisoners  could  not  be  removed  from 


The  Garner  Case  203 

custody  under  arrest  for  crime  by  any  proceeding  under  the  fugitive 
slave  act,  made  no  opposition  to  the  allowance  of  the  writ.1 

Before  the  decision  of  Judge  Leavitt,  an  incident  occurred  in 
the  Commissioner's  Court  worthy  of  notice.2 

The  marshal  had  excluded  colored  persons  from  the  court 
room,  to  which  the  counsel  objected  as  he  wished  to  call  wit 
nesses  who  were  of  that  class.  The  order  of  the  court  to 
admit  them  was  disregarded  by  the  marshal,  who  also  refused 
to  serve  subpoenas  for  the  defendants.  The  commissioner,  in 
explanation,  said  that  there  was  no  law  providing  for  the  sub 
poenaing  of  witnesses  for  the  defendants  in  such  cases,  but 

'Warden's  Chase,  p.  348. 

2  Counsel  for  plaintiff  had  reflected  on  Mrs.  Lucy  Stone  Blackwell  for  visiting 
Mrs.  Garner  in  the  jail.  After  court  adjourned  the  people  in  attendance  invited 
Mrs.  Blackwell  to  speak.  She  said  : 

"When  I  came  here  and  saw  that  poor  fugitive,  took  her  toil-hardened  hand, 
and  read  in  her  face  deep  suffering  and  an  ardent  longing  for  freedom,  I  could 
not  help  bidding  her  be  of  good  cheer.  I  told  her  that  a  thousand  hearts  were 
aching  for  her  and  that  they  were  glad  that  one  child  of  hers  was  safe  with  the 
angels.  Her  only  reply  was  a  look  of  deep  despair — of  anguish  such  as  no  heart 
can  speak. 

"  I  thought  then  that  the  spirit  she  manifested  was  the  same  as  that  of  our 
ancestors  to  whom  we  had  erected  the  monument  at  Bunker  Hill — the  spirit  that 
would  rather  let  all  go  back  to  God  than  back  to  slavery. 

"The  faded  faces  of  the  negro  children  tell  too  plainly  to  what  degradation 
female  slaves  submit.  Rather  than  give  her  little  daughter  to  that  life  she  killed 
it.  If  in  her  deep  maternal  love  she  felt  the  impulse  to  send  her  child  back  to 
God,  to  save  it  from  coming  woe,  who  shall  say  she  had  no  right  to  do  so  ?  That 
desire  had  its  root  in  the  deepest  and  holiest  feelings  of  our  nature,  implanted 
alike  in  black  and  white  by  our  common  Father.  With  my  own  teeth  would  I 
tear  open  my  veins,  and  let  the  earth  drink  my  blood,  rather  than  wear  the 
chains  of  slavery.  How  then  can  I  blame  her?  After  talking  with  the  poor 
slave  woman  I  talked  with  her  master.  I  told  him  these  were  heroic  times,  and 
that  this  heroic  action  of  his  slave  might  send  his  name  to  posterity  as  her  op 
pressor,  or  as  the  generous  giver  of  her  freedom.  He  said,  '  If  I  get  her  back  to 
Kentucky,  I  mean  to  make  her  free.'" — Cincinnati  Gazette,  Feb.  28th. 

"  One  touch  of  nature  makes  the  whole  world  kin."  There  are  many  of  us 
that  would  feel  a  greater  pride  in  sharing  the  bright  red  blood  that  ran  through 
the  heart,  bounding  for  freedom,  under  the  dark  bosom  of  the  poor  slave  mother, 
than  that  we  share  in  common  with  the  pale  faces  of  some  statesmen  of  the  North. 
— William  M.  Evarts,  before  the  New  York  mass  meeting,  April  29,  1856. 


204  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

only  for  the  serving  of  subpoenas  issued  by  the  masters.  When 
accounts  for  such  service  were  sent  to  Washington  the  comp 
troller  had  refused  to  allow  them.  In  the  Garner  case  private 
parties  paid  the  fees  for  service  for  defendants. 

Judge  Leavitt  held  that  the  right  of  the  marshal  to  the 
custody  of  the  persons  in  question  must  be  respected.  At 
the  same  time  he  conceded  the  responsibility  of  the  fugitives 
for  the  violation  of  the  criminal  laws,  and  the  duty  of  the  State 
to  punish  crime  committed  within  its  limits.  But  being  in 
the  custody  of  an  officer  under  a  law  of  the  United  States  be 
fore  their  arrest  for  crime  against  the  State  law,  the  latter 
arrest  could  not  be  enforced  till  the  disability  by  the  prior 
arrest  was  removed.  He  quoted  the  opinion  of  Judge  McLean 
in  the  Dorr  case  (3  Howard  Rep.,  105): 

Neither  this  nor  any  other  court  of  the  United  States,  or  judge 
thereof,  can  issue  a  habeas  corpus  to  bring  up  a  prisoner  who  is  in 
custody  under  a  sentence  or  execution  of  a  State  court,  for  any 
other  purpose  than  to  be  used  as  a  witness.  And  it  is  immaterial 
whether  the  imprisonment  be  under  civil  or  criminal  process. 

If  it  be  true,  added  Judge  Leavitt,  that  no  federal  court 
could  interfere  with  the  exercise  of  the  proper  jurisdiction  of 
a  State  court,  the  converse  of  the  proposition  was  equally 
true.1  Hence  in  effect,  the  criminal  law  of  the  State  could  not 
be  enforced  until  after  the  claim  of  slavery  was  fully  met,  as 
the  United  States  commissioner  was  sure  to  return  the  fugi 
tives  to  bondage.  The  Garners  were  all  delivered  to  the  mas 
ter,  who  instantly  despatched  them  to  Arkansas,  on  board  the 

1  Ju<^ge  McLean's  opinion  in  United  States  vs.  Nelson  Rector  and  Smith  A. 
Ellis  (5  McLean's  Reports),  is  to  the  same  effect.  But  both  decisions  seem  to  con 
flict  with  his  dissenting  opinion  in  the  Prigg  case.  He  said:  "The  slave  as  a 
sensible  and  human  being,  is  subject  to  the  local  authority,  into  whatsoever  juris 
diction  he  may  go.  He  is  answerable  under  the  laws  for  his  acts,  and  he  may 
claim  their  protection.  .  .  .  Should  the  slave  commit  murder,  he  may  be  detained 
and  punished  for  it  by  the  State  in  disregard  of  the  claim  of  the  master.  Being 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State,  a  slave  bears  a  very  different  relation  to  it 
from  that  of  mere  property." 


The  Greene  County  Rescue  Case          205 

Henry  Lewis.  When  a  few  miles  below  Louisville,  the  steamer 
was  wrecked  and  Margaret's  remaining  children  were  drowned. 

Governor  Chase  issued  a  requisition  upon  the  Governor  of 
Kentucky,  who  granted  a  warrant  of  extradition,  but  the 
fugitives  were  beyond  the  bounds  of  the  State.  Gaines,  at 
the  request  of  the  Governor  of  Kentucky,  subsequently  re 
turned  Margaret  Garner  to  the  Covington  jail,  but  when  an 
officer  presented  a  warrant  to  the  keeper  he  was  told  that  she 
had  been  spirited  away.  And  that  was  the  last  ever  heard  of 
the  poor  mother,  whose  frenzied  act  thrilled  many  hearts  and 
multiplied  the  opponents  of  the  system  of  oppression. 

Other  cases  of  conflict  followed.  One,  known  as  the  ' '  Greene 
County  Rescue  Case,"  set  the  State  aflame.  In  May,  1857,  a 
deputy-marshal,  accompanied  by  eleven  assistants,  arrested 
four  respectable  and  peaceable  citizens  of  Mechanicsburg, 
Champaign  County,  "for  harboring  and  concealing  "  fugitives 
from  Kentucky.  The  officer  refused  to  exhibit  his  warrant  to 
the  accused  or  their  friends,  but  as  he  promised  to  give  them  a 
hearing  at  Urbana,  they  did  not  attempt  to  evade  the  sum 
mons.  Instead  of  going  to  the  county  seat  as  he  had  prom 
ised,  he  drove  toward  Clark  County  with  all  possible  speed. 
Meanwhile  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  had  been  granted  by  the 
Probate  Judge  of  Champaign  County,  under  authority  of  a 
State  statute  passed  in  1856  for  the  protection  of  citizens  in 
such  cases,  and  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  sheriff  to  serve. 
When  the  sheriff  overtook  the  marshal's  party  they  had  just 
crossed  the  county  line,  and  his  jurisdiction  ended.  Later  in 
the  day  the  sheriff  of  Clark  County  undertook  to  serve  a  writ, 
was  fired  upon,  knocked  down  and  most  brutally  treated  by 
the  United  States  officers,  who  refused  to  show  the  authority 
under  which  they  were  acting.  By  this  time  the  whole  county 
was  alive  with  citizens  in  search  of  the  deputy-marshals, 
whereupon  they  made  a  detour  into  Greene  County,  where 
they  were  finally  halted  and  their  prisoners  liberated.  A 
warrant  was  issued  by  a  justice  of  the  peace  for  the  appre 
hension  of  the  perpetrators  of  the  assault  on  Sheriff  Layton, 
of  Clark  County.  This  warrant  was  duly  executed,  and  the 


2o6  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

prisoners  were  committed  to  jail  in  Springfield.  Judge  Leavitt 
issued  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  directed  to  the  sheriff  of  Clark 
County,  requiring  him  to  produce  his  prisoners,  which  writ 
was  obeyed,  and  the  case  came  on  for  argument. 

There  was  a  great  array  of  legal  ability  on  both  sides. 
Stanley  Matthews,  then  United  States  District  Attorney, 
Senator  Pugh  and  Clement  L.  Vallandigham  appeared  for 
the  marshals.  Attorney-General  Wolcott,  a  lawyer  of  bril 
liant  promise,  and  General  Mason  of  Springfield  represented 
the  State.  The  limitations  of  State  and  federal  authority, 
the  extent  of  the  right  to  use  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  were 
discussed  in  elaborate  arguments,  but  without  influence  on 
the  court.  Judge  Leavitt,  notwithstanding  it  was  proved 
that  the  marshals  had  far  transcended  their  duties,  had  out 
raged  their  office,  and  had  obstructed  the  criminal  laws  of  the 
State,  discharged  them,  on  the  ground  that  being  federal 
officers,  and  charged  with  the  execution  of  a  federal  writ, 
they  had  a  right  to  overcome  by  any  necessary  violence  all 
attempts  made  under  the  process  of  a  State  court  to  detain 
them  or  their  prisoners  even  for  inquiry  into  the  legality  of 
the  custody  in  which  those  prisoners  were  held,  and  he  at  once 
entered  upon  the  work  of  punishing  those  citizens  of  the 
counties  of  Champaign,  Clark  and  Greene  who  had  aided 
the  sheriffs  in  their  attempts  to  execute  the  processes  of  the 
State  courts.  Hastening  events  put  a  period  to  this  sort  of 
persecution. 

The  conflict  of  jurisdiction  set  the  lawyers  to  discussing  the 
questions  involved.  They  engaged  in  an  effort  to  ascertain 
whether  the  State  of  Ohio — its  two  millions  of  people,  and  its 
courts — had  any  rights,  weight  or  influence  of  any  sort,  as 
compared  with  a  United  States  marshal. 

While  it  was  conceded  that  neither  a  State  nor  a  federal 
court  could  issue  injunctions  on  the  process  of  the  other,  and 
that  the  United  States  courts  could  not  interfere  with  the 
criminal  jurisdiction  of  the  State  courts,  yet  we  have  a  United 
States  District  Court  reviewing  the  process  of  the  State  courts 
under  a  criminal  charge,  going  back  through  half  a  dozen 


The  Greene  County  Rescue  Case         207 

different  acts,  trying  all  the  parties  without  a  jury,  and  finally 
winding  up  with  a  dissertation  on  the  Union.  In  the  McLeod 
case  before  Congress,  Mr.  Buchanan,  on  the  passage  of  the 
bill,  said:  "You  cannot  under  the  Constitution  confer  upon 
any  Federal  judge,  or  even  upon  the  Supreme  Court  itself,  the 
power  to  try  the  facts  involving  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
accused  without  the  intervention  of  a  jury  of  the  county." 

Readers  of  the  Federalist  will  recall  Mr.  Madison's  argument 
in  reply  to  the  objection  to  the  new  government  that  the  rights 
and  sovereignty  of  the  States  would  be  overborne  by  the 
federal  government,  in  which  he  expressed  the  opinion  that 
the  balance  was  much  more  likely  to  be  disturbed  by  the  pre 
ponderance  of  the  State,  than  of  the  federal  government, 
based  on  these  five  several  particulars  wherein  the  former 
would  have  the  advantage,  namely : 

Whether  we  compare  them  in  respect  to  the  immediate  depend 
ence  of  the  one  on  the  other;  to  the  weight  of  personal  influence 
which  each  will  possess;  to  the  powers  respectively  vested  in  them; 
to  the  predilection  and  probable  support  of  the  people;  to  the  dis 
position  and  faculty  of  resisting  and  frustrating  the  measures  of 
each  other. 

This  theoretical  view  was  accepted  in  that  day,  and  Mr. 
Madison  and  others  acting  on  it  regulated  their  political  aspira 
tions  accordingly.  But  time  proved  that  the  federal  govern 
ment,  instead  of  being  limited  to  external  objects,  directly 
concerned  the  affairs  and  prosperity  of  the  people  themselves 
—in  coining  money,  in  regulating  internal  commerce,  in  the 
establishment  of  post-offices  and  post-roads,  in  granting  patent 
rights  and  copyrights,  in  making  bankrupt  laws,  in  the  extra 
dition  of  fugitives,  and  in  meeting  the  exigencies  arising  from 
the  expansion  of  the  country — to  an  extent  exceeding  the 
anticipations  of  the  most  ardent  Hamiltonian.  In  time  the 
offices  and  emoluments  of  the  federal  government  became 
the  chief  object  of  ambition ;  and  the  party  attachments 
arising  under  the  federal  government  influenced  State  legis 
lation  to  a  greater  extent  than  the  reverse.  And  in  this 


208  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

connection  we  note  a  remarkable  reversal  of  party  policy.  In 
the  attempts  of  the  Democratic  party  of  Jackson,  Polk  and 
Pierce  to  nationalize  slavery,  we  find  it  abandoning  the  doc 
trine  of  the  limited  powers  of  the  general  government  pro 
claimed  by  Jeffersonian  Republicanism,  and  concentrating  all 
power  in  the  hands  of  the  agents  of  that  government. 

In  the  cases  of  conflict  of  jurisdiction  above  recited,  the 
sovereignty  and  independence  of  the  States,  as  guaranteed  to 
them  by  the  Constitution,  suffered  such  invasion  as  Mr.  Madi 
son  had  thought  altogether  unlikely  to  occur,  but  sure  if  it  did 
occur  to  cause  general  alarm  and  to  rouse  the  people  of  the 
States  to  a  common  resistance.  But  it  proved  to  be  far  other 
wise.  Instead  of  union  there  was  division.  A  minority  in 
vested  with  all  the  powers  of  the  federal  government  held 
the  majority  by  the  throat. 

Judge  Leavitt,  in  the  case  of  the  State  of  Ohio  vs.  The 
marshals,  and  Judge  Kane,  in  the  case  of  ex parte  Jenkins  and 
others,  found  authority  for  their  decisions  in  an  act  that  had 
lain  dormant  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century,  which  act 
had  been  passed  to  meet  an  emergency  of  a  different  charac 
ter.  In  both  cases  arising  under  the  fugitive  slave  law  of 
1850,  the  marshals  were  in  the  hands  of  the  sheriff  of  the  re 
spective  States,  awaiting  their  trial  by  the  courts  of  the  State 
under  the  charges  of  assault  and  battery,  and  assault  or  shoot 
ing  with  intent  to  kill.  In  both  cases  they  were  brought  before 
the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  on  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  addressed  to  the  sheriff,  and  issued  under  the  authority 
of  the  seventh  section  of  the  act  of  Congress  of  March  2d, 
1833,  entitled  "An  act  further  to  provide  for  the  collection  of 
duties  and  imposts,"  which  conferred  on  any  judge  of  a 
United  States  court  power  to  grant  writs  of  habeas  corpus  in 
all  cases  of  a  prisoner  committed  "for  any  act  done,  or  omitted 
to  be  done,  in  pursuance  of  a  law  of  the  United  States,  or  any 
order,  process  or  decree  of  any  judge  or  court  thereof, "- 
power  conferred  expressly  to  meet  the  nullification  of  South 
Carolina. 

In  both  cases  under  consideration  the  sheriff  returned,  ' '  That 


The  Conflict  Rouses  Discussion          209 

he  held  the  parties  by  virtue  of  a  warrant  from  the  State  courts 
to  await  their  trial  upon  the  charges  alleged  against  them." 
In  both  cases  the  court  went  back  of  the  return  and  of  the 
warrant,  and  examined  whether  the  marshals  were  guilty  of 
the  offence  charged,  or  whether  they  were  justified  in  their 
acts  by  the  process  which  they  held,  and  in  both  cases  they 
were  discharged.  Did  the  federal  judges  err  in  their  decisions 
in  these  cases  ?  Did  the  act  of  Congress  of  1833  vest  the 
federal  courts  with  jurisdiction  of  this  inquiry  ?  The  origin 
of  the  act  is  notorious.  Its  intent  was  plainly  to  protect 
the  federal  officers  from  prosecution  under  any  unconstitu 
tional  law  of  the  States  making  it  penal  for  them  to  discharge 
their  duties  under  the  federal  government.  But  neither 
Pennsylvania  nor  Ohio  made  "any  act  done  or  omitted  to  be 
done  in  pursuance  of  a  law  of  the  United  States,  or  any  order, 
process  or  decree  of  any  judge  or  court  thereof,"  a  crime  the 
subject  of  an  indictment.  Nor  was  such  an  act  within  the 
meaning  of  an  assault  and  battery  with  intent  to  kill,  as  de 
fined  by  the  laws  of  either  of  those  States.  The  question 
involved  was  one  of  fact  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
marshals  of  an  offence  against  the  State.  On  this  point  the 
author  of  an  Examination  reflected  the  sentiment  prevalent  at 
the  time.  He  said  : 

It  is  an  essential  requisite  of  every  crime,  that  it  is  an  act  not 
"enjoined  or  justified  by  the  law  of  the  land."  And  if  it  was  the 
intention  of  this  seventh  section  of  the  law  of  1833  to  vest  the  United 
States  courts  with  the  power,  and  to  impose  upon  them  the  duty,  to 
hear  evidence,  and  determine  that  question,  as  far  as  relates  to  the 
federal  laws,  in  regard  to  every  alleged  offence  against  the  peace 
and  order  of  the  State,  then,  indeed,  "it  is  transferring  legislative 
power  to  the  judiciary,  and  vesting  it  with  almost  unlimited  jurisdic 
tion;  for,  where  is  the  act  that  might  not  in  some  distinct  manner 
be  connected  with  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  the  United  States  ?  " 
Every  petty  official,  from  the  postmaster  to  the  President,  nay  more, 
every  citizen  of  the  community  (for  the  terms  of  the  act  are  general), 
is  entitled  to  have  his  cause  examined  in  the  federal  courts  before 
he  can  be  tried  for  an  alleged  offence  against  the  State.  If  this  be 

VOL.  1—14 


2io  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

true,  better  had  the  States  abandoned  at  once  the  execution  of  their 
criminal  laws  into  the  hands  of  the  federal  authorities.  If  it  be 
true,  then  this  section  of  an  act  "better  to  provide  for  the  collection 
of  duties  and  imposts  "  went  far  beyond  the  necessities  of  such  a 
case  as  it  was  professedly  intended  to  meet;  and  the  language  of 
the  section,  instead  of  being  in  those  broad  and  general  terms  that 
would  ordinarily  be  used  in  conferring  such  a  power,  is  singularly 
inadequate  for  such  a  purpose. 

The  discussion  touched  not  only  upon  State  sovereignty, 
but  upon  the  inquiry,  What  was  the  nature  of  the  common-law 
writ  of  habeas  corpus?  Judge  Leavitt,  adopting  the  language 
of  counsel  for  the  marshals,  charged  the  Legislature  of  Ohio 
with  the  perversion  of  the  reverence  due  to  the  writ,  "in  the 
application  of  that  sacred  name  to  another  and  different  writ, 
that  of  homine  replegiando,  because,  forsooth,  in  certain  in 
stances  the  writ  was  directed  to  the  sheriff  of  the  county, 
instead  of  the  parties  charged  with  the  unlawful  custody." 
"But,  surely,"  said  the  author  of  an  Examination,  in  reply, 
"that  is  a  greater  perversion  of  the  writ,  a  greater  violence  in 
the  use  of  language,  which  calls  that  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
which  seeks  to  change  the  whole  scope  and  purpose  of  that 
bulwark  of  liberty." 

No  doubt  [concluded  our  author]  it  is  an  unfortunate  condition 
of  affairs,  and  a  cause  of  regret  to  every  good  citizen,  that  there 
should  ever  exist  a  general  spirit  of  resistance  against  any  law,  from 
the  people  among  whom  it  is  to  be  executed;  and  the  necessity  of 
applying  force  in  such  cases  is  always  to  be  deprecated.  But  a 
resort  to  the  exercise  of  illegal  powers  will  never  constrain  the 
obedience  of  a  free  people.  It  is  unwisely  sought,  therefore,  by 
the  friends  of  the  federal  supremacy,  to  stretch  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  federal  courts,  under  a  mistaken  idea  that  it  is  necessary  to 
meet  the  exigencies  of  this  case.  Let  the  trial  of  parties  charged 
with  offences  against  the  laws  of  the  State  go  forward  in  the  State 
courts,  and  if  the  validity  of  any  statute,  or  authority  exercised 
under  the  United  States,  be  drawn  in  question  or  denied,  their 
decision  will  be  subject  to  revision  by  the  courts  of  the  United 


The  Conflict  Rouses  Discussion          211 

States.  If  otherwise,  and  if,  unfortunately,  any  innocent  person 
should  be  found  guilty  by  the  oaths  of  twelve  of  his  fellow-citizens, 
he  will  not  suffer  without  advantage  to  his  country;  better  so,  than 
that  we  should  all  lose  our  birthright.  It  has  been  said  that  "the 
blood  of  the  martyrs  is  the  seed  of  the  church,"  and  the  blood  of 
political  martyrs  may  yet  prove  the  seed  of  liberty.  It  is  far  better, 
therefore,  for  the  federal  authorities  to  suffer,  than  to  occasion  such 
a  martyrdom.  "Nam  in  omni  certamine,  qui  opulentior  est,  etiamsi 
accipit  injuriam,  quia  plus  potest,  facer e  videtur. ' ' 

Governor  Chase,  in  his  annual  message  to  the  Legislature, 
referred  to  these  cases  of  conflict,  and  to  the  decisions  of 
Judge  Leavitt  with  special  emphasis.  He  said : 

This  principle  cannot  be  sound.  It  subverts  effectually  the 
sovereignty  of  the  State.  It  asserts  the  right  of  any  District  Judge 
of  the  United  States  to  arrest  the  execution  of  State  process,  and  to 
nullify  the  functions  of  State  courts  and  juries,  whenever  in  his 
opinion  a  person  charged  with  crime  under  State  authority  has 
acted  in  the  matter  forming  the  basis  of  the  charge  in  pur 
suance  of  any  federal  law  or  warrant.  No  act  of  Congress  in 
my  judgment  sanctions  this  principle.  Such  an  act,  indeed, 
would  be  clearly  unconstitutional,  because  in  plain  violation  of 
the  express  provision  which  requires  that  the  trial  of  all  crime  shall 
be  by  jury. 

It  is  deeply  to  be  regretted  that  collisions  of  this  kind  should 
occur.  The  authorities  of  Ohio  have  never  failed  in  due  considera 
tion  for  the  constitutional  rights  of  a  federal  court,  nor  will  they 
thus  fail.  But  they  cannot  admit  without  dishonor,  that  State  pro 
cess  is  entitled  to  less  respect  than  federal,  nor  can  they  ever  con 
cede  to  federal  rights  or  federal  officials  a  deference  which  is 
not  conceded  to  those  of  the  State.  If  such  conflicts  must  come, 
to  the  extent  of  the  power  vested  in  me,  I  shall  maintain  the  honor 
of  the  State  and  support  the  authority  of  her  courts. 

The  views  of  the  Governor  were  applauded,  and  the  circum 
stances  which  had  aroused  public  feeling  beyond  any  previous 
experience  enabled  him  to  reorganize  the  militia  system  of 


212  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

the  State  (an  object  he  had  much  at  heart)  none  too  soon, 
for  a  grave  emergency  was  at  hand. 

The  State  of  Wisconsin  went  further  than  Ohio  in  the  direc 
tion  of  nullification.  Sherman  M.  Booth,  who  had  been  con 
victed  in  the  District  Court  for  aiding  and  abetting  the  escape 
of  a  fugitive  slave  from  the  United  States  deputy-marshal, 
and  sentenced  to  imprisonment  besides  being  fined,  was  re 
leased  upon  habeas  corpus  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State. 
Then  upon  petition  of  the  Attorney-General  of  the  United 
States,  Chief  Justice  Taney  allowed  a  writ  of  error  to  issue  to 
bring  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Wisconsin  before 
the  United  States  Supreme  Court  to  correct  the  error  of  judg 
ment.  Thereupon  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  directed 
its  clerk  to  make  no  return  to  the  writ  of  error,  and  to  enter 
no  order  upon  the  records  of  the  court  concerning  the  same. 
The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  met  this  contumacy 
by  ordering  the  certified  copy  in  possession  of  the  Attorney- 
General  to  be  entered  on  its  docket,  and  then  proceeded  to 
review  the  case  the  same  as  if  it  had  come  before  the  court 
with  the  concurrence  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Wisconsin. 
Chief  Justice  Taney  declared  that  the  supremacy  of  the 
State  courts  over  the  courts  of  the  United  States  in  cases 
arising  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States, 
was  for  the  first  time  asserted  and  acted  upon  in  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Wisconsin.  The  danger  to  the  peace  of  the  country 
was  pointed  out.  This  opinion  was  pronounced  March  7, 
1859.  Twelve  days  later  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  adopted 
a  series  of  resolutions  condemning  the  assumption  of  jurisdic 
tion  in  this  case  by  the  federal  judiciary — reaffirming  the 
doctrine  of  the  Virginia  Resolutions  of  1/98,  and  declaring  that 
the  principle  and  construction  contended  for  by  the  party 
ruling  the  councils  of  the  nation  led  to  despotism;  "since  the 
discretion  of  those  who  administer  the  government,  and  not 
the  Constitution,  would  be  the  measure  of  their  powers." 

One  would  be  far  wrong  to  infer  from  this  particular  disap 
proval  of  the  high-handed  measures  employed  in  the  enforce 
ment  of  the  fugitive  slave  act  a  willingness  on  the  part  of  any 


The  Conflict  Rouses  Discussion 


213 


considerable  portion  of  the  people  to  forcible  resistance.  The 
conviction  was  general  that  the  new  party  would  be  put  in  the 
wrong  by  any  such  course — that  no  cause  is  strong  when  its 
votaries  transcend  the  law — that  all  violence  is  evil  and  self- 
destructive.1 

1  John  G.  Whittier  on  the  Boston  riots  of  1854. 


CHAPTER   VIII 

CONVENTIONS   OF     1856  —  "BLEEDING    KANSAS  "-- ELECTION 

OF   BUCHANAN 

AS  the  time  approached  for  the  assembling  of  the  national 
convention  of  the  Democratic  party  at  Cincinnati,  Mr. 
Buchanan  contemplated  his  release  from  his  diplomatic 
office  with  ill-concealed  impatience.  He  complained  of  the 
dilatory  course  of  the  administration.1  When  at  last  word 
reached  London  that  the  mission  had  been  tendered  to  Mr. 
Dallas,  his  joy  bubbled  over.2  He  believed  the  presidency  to 
be  within  his  reach  at  last  after  years  of  candidacy,  if  he  could 
exchange  London  for  Wheatland.  He  was  too  old  a  politician 
not  to  estimate  rightly  the  serious  character  of  the  difficulties 
which  confronted  the  President  in  his  canvass  for  a  second 
term,  and  he  felt  sure  of  the  support  of  Virginia,  the  real  leader 
of  Southern  policy.  And  yet,  in  his  personal  correspondence 
he  affected  a  coyness  becoming  a  neophyte  in  politics.3 

Mr.  Buchanan  made  a  most  respectable  figure  at  the  British 
court,  sustaining  the  American  character  at  all  times  with 
admirable  dignity  and  independence.  But  he  was  leaving  at 
a  time  when  the  relations  between  the  two  countries  were 
strained,  when  war  was  being  discussed  as  a  possibility,  and 
without  having  settled  the  dispute  about  Central  America, 
which  was  the  chief  object  of  his  mission.  Before  accepting 
the  appointment  himself,  he  had  freely  criticised  the  diplomacy 

1  Letters  of  January  i8th  and  25th  to  William  L.  Marcy.     Life,  vol.  ii. 
9  Ibid.,  Feb.  1 5th. 

3  Ibid.     Also  letter  to  Governor  Bigler,  Feb.  I2th. 

214 


Mr.  Buchanan  in  England  215 

of  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr.  Clayton,  which  he  said  had  involved 
our  relations  with  England  in  serious  difficulty  "by  departing 
from  the  Monroe  doctrine."  '  Yet  he  failed  to  extricate  his 
country  from  the  alleged  false  position,  or  to  justify  the 
criticism  that  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr.  Clayton  had  blundered  in 
their  treaties.  As  to  the  particular  question  entrusted  to 
him,  have  not  the  contentions  of  the  American  government,  in 
the  controversies  between  the  two  governments  since  the 
execution  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  sustained  Mr.  Clay 
ton's  interpretation  of  the  principal  clauses?  The  treaty  had 
its  origin  in  the  acquisition  of  California,  which  made  the 
opening  of  interoceanic  communication  of  the  first  importance 
to  our  people.  In  1846,  a  right  of  transit  was  secured  by 
treaty  with  New  Granada,  under  which  the  Panama  railroad 
was  built  by  American  capitalists.  Later  a  treaty  was  entered 
into  with  Nicaragua  for  the  construction  of  a  ship-canal  by 
way  of  the  Lake  of  Nicaragua,  but  the  Atlantic  coast  being 
occupied  by  immigrants  from  Jamaica,  and  by  the  Mosquito 
Indians,  over  whom  Great  Britain  exercised  a  protectorate, 
that  government  declined  to  withdraw  its  pretensions,  but 
united  in  a  treaty  for  a  joint  protectorate  over  the  canal.  It 
was  further  agreed  that  neither  party  should  occupy,  or  fortify, 
or  colonize,  or  assume,  or  exercise  any  dominion  over  any  part 
of  Central  America.2  The  United  States  government  has  con 
tended  that  this  required  Great  Britain  to  withdraw  from 
these  possessions,  while  the  latter  has  held  that  it  merely 
prohibited  the  making  of  new  acquisitions.  The  language 
of  President  Monroe  was  that  "the  American  continents 
should  no  longer  be  subjects  for  any  new  European  colonial 
settlement."  But  while  the  spirit  of  this  doctrine  has 
been  observed  by  our  government  under  all  parties,  in  its 

1  Letter  to  General  Pierce,  Dec.  n,  1852. 

9\Vharton's  Digest  of  International  Law,  chap,  vi.,  sec  150  f.  In  1884,  Mr. 
Frelinghuysen,  Secretary  of  State,  served  notice  on  Great  Britain  that  the  United 
States  held  the  treaty  to  be  void,  her  Majesty's  government  having  persistently 
violated  the  agreement.  In  1894,  the  relations  to  the  Mosquito  Indians  were 
again  under  consideration,  and  complications  with  Nicaragua  had  to  be 
adjusted. 


216  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

diplomacy,  it  has  never  been  imprudent  enough  to  attempt 
the  role  of  universal  arbiter,  or  to  appeal  to  force  as  against 
Great  Britain. 

There  was  much  bellicose  talk  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic, 
as  the  Crimean  war  was  nearing  its  close ;  the  British  fleet  in 
American  waters  was  largely  increased,  and  a  state  of  panic 
ensued  which  reduced  values  and  threatened  serious  disturb 
ances  in  the  finances  and  commerce  of  both  countries,  for 
which  the  newspapers  were  chiefly  to  blame.  While  Ameri 
cans  were  terrifying  themselves  with  anticipations  of  fearful 
commercial  disasters  from  the  embarrassment  of  the  banks  of 
France  and  England,  and  possible  suspension  of  specie  pay 
ments,1  the  British  were  under  the  wildest  excitement,  "occa 
sioned  by  an  anticipated  outbreak  of  war  with  this  country, 
into  which  England  was  to  be  forced  by  the  insolence  of  our 
government,  the  marauding  disposition  of  our  people,  by  our 
aid  to  Russia  and  our  invasion  of  Ireland."  a  Agents  of  the 
British  government  were  found  in  several  of  the  leading  cities 
of  the  United  States,  from  Boston  to  Cincinnati,  engaged  in 
enlisting  recruits  for  the  army  in  the  Crimea,  in  violation  of 
our  neutrality  laws.  The  actual  enlistment  took  place  at 
points  in  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia,  but  the  purpose  was  clearly 
understood  when  the  recruits  left  their  homes.  It  was  an 
evasion  of  the  laws.  When  Henry  Hertz  and  E.  C.  Perkins, 
agents  in  Philadelphia  who  had  been  arrested,  were  on  trial 
before  Judge  Kane,  the  complicity  of  Mr.  Crampton,  British 
minister  at  Washington,  was  so  well  established  that  our  gov 
ernment  demanded  his  recall.3  This  occasioned  great  irrita 
tion  in  England,  where  it  was  felt  that  the  apology  made  to 

1  The  British  government  authorized  the  suspension  of  the  Bank  Charter  Act, 
during  the  panic  of  1857,  so  far  as  to  allow  the  bank  directors  the  power  to 
strengthen  the  banking  department  by  recourse  to  the  reserves  of  the  issue  de 
partment.  The  Bank  of  France  found  it  necessary  also  to  increase  its  capital. — 
Brit.  Encyclopedia,  art.  "  Banking." 

3  New  York  Times,  Nov.  16,  1855. 

3  "  The  American  government  have  dismissed  Mr.  Crampton,  United  States 
minister,  who  is  gone  to  Toronto,  which  is  rather  alarming, " — Diary  of  the  Earl 
of  Malmesbury,  June  5th. 


Mr.  Buchanan  in  England  217 

our  government  by  the  British  was  ample  for  the  offence;  but 
the  apology,  said  John  Bright,  was  like  the  verdict  of  a  jury 
expressed  in  this  wise:  "The  man  is  not  guilty,  but  we  hope 
he  will  never  do  so  any  more." 

"The  Thunderer"  more  nearly  expressed  the  vexation  of 
Lord  Palmerston  than  his  own  organ  the  Morning  Post.  It 
declared  that  England's  error  was  due  to  assurances  of  the 
sympathy  of  the  United  States  in  her  defence  of  Turkey 
against  Russian  aggression.  "There  was  no  Power,"  said  the 
Times,  "from  which  she  received  assurances  of  support  more 
hearty,  more  satisfactory  and  more  spontaneous  than  from 
the  United  States  of  America. "  These  assurances  were  re 
ceived  from  the  American  minister  in  London,  who,  it  was 
said,  on  one  occasion  expressing  apprehension  as  to  the  dura 
bility  of  the  alliance  with  France,  went  so  far  as  to  add  that 
Great  Britain  need  be  under  no  apprehension  on  that  account, 
"for  the  United  States  were  willing  to  make  our  quarrel  their 
own,  and  aid  us  with  thousands  of  stout  hearts  and  brawny 
arms,  as  ready  to  pluck  down  the  despotism  of  the  East  as  to 
subdue  the  wilderness  and  level  the  giant  forests  of  the 
West."1 

While  this  undoubtedly  misrepresented  Mr.  Buchanan's  con 
versations  with  Lord  Clarendon,  there  is  curious  confirmation 
of  the  Times'  charge  in  Mr.  Buchanan's  private  memorandum- 
book  in  which  are  set  down  the  reasons  he  gave  to  Lord  Clar 
endon  for  objecting  to  a  projet  for  a  treaty  making  it  piracy  for 
neutrals  to  serve  on  board  of  privateers  cruising  against  the 
commerce  of  the  parties  to  the  treaty.  The  language  of  the 
sixth  reason  is  almost  as  strong  as  that  attributed  to  Mr. 
Buchanan  by  the  Times.  It  is  as  follows : 

The  time  may  possibly  come  when  Great  Britain,  in  a  war  with 
the  despotisms  of  Europe,  might  find  it  to  be  exceedingly  to  her  in 
terests  to  employ  American  sailors  on  board  her  privateers,  and  such 
a  treaty  would  render  this  impossible.  Why  should  she  unneces 
sarily  bind  her  hands  ?3 

1  London  Times,  Nov.  16,  1855.  *Life,  vol.  ii.,  p.  129. 


2i8  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

This  was  twelve  days  before  war  was  declared  against  Rus 
sia.  What  more  natural  than  for  the  British  government  to 
infer  that  sympathy  which  the  Times  alleges  ?  At  any  rate 
that  paper  declared  that  the  English  government  believed  it 
real  and  acted  on  that  belief.1  Unhappily  it  soon  became 
apparent  from  the  philo-Russian  tone  adopted  by  nearly  the 
whole  American  press,  that  the  American  minister  and  the 
British  government  had  alike  mistaken  the  disposition  of 
the  people  of  the  United  States.  There  was  a  wild  state  of 
excitement  for  a  time.  It  was  rumored  that  Mr.  Buchanan 
would  be  served  as  had  been  Mr.  Crampton,  while  it  is  certain 
that  the  tone  of  the  English  cabinet  was  belligerent.  "This 
country  is  on  the  eve  of  a  war  with  the  United  States,"  the 
Liverpool  Journal  declared,  "unless  public  opinion  is  brought 
to  operate  immediately  on  her  Majesty's  ministers." 

Public  opinion  was  brought  to  bear  on  the  controversy  by 
the  substantial  men  of  England  in  a  way  not  to  be  misunder 
stood.  John  Bright  then,  as  in  later  years,  the  friend  of 
America,  before  a  great  audience  at  Manchester,  deprecated 
war  and  arraigned  the  English  government  in  severe  and 
caustic  language  which  was  heartily  cheered.2 

When  the  portents  of  war  had  vanished,  the  London  Times 
repeated  its  charge  that  Mr.  Buchanan  was  responsible  for  the 
misunderstanding  between  the  governments. 

We  have  not  forgotten  how  adroitly  he  kept  alive  the  quarrel  with 
England  which  Lord  Clarendon  strove  so  earnestly  to  terminate, 
not  from  any  wish  to  involve  the  two  countries  in  war,  but  because 

1  "  Was  it  unlikely,  a  priori,  that  a  nation  whose  noble  boast  it  is  that  her  soil 
is  the  chosen  abode  of  Freedom,  whose  every  citizen  is  a  missionary  against  the 
creed  of  despotism,  should  warm  to  a  generous  enthusiasm  at  a  war  waged  for  no 
selfish  motive,  but  to  curb  barbarous  insolence  ?  We  do  not  think  so  : 
and  therefore,  unfortunate  as  the  result  has  been,  we  cannot  blame  our  ministers 
that,  in  their  urgent  need  of  men,  they  sought  to  avail  themselves  of  the  resources 
of  the  West." — London  Times,  Nov.  16,  1855. 

2  "We  have  a  right  to  demand  from  our  rulers,  what  is  the  meaning  of  this 
hasty  despatch  of  ships — these  angry  diplomatic  notices — these  sudden  indications 
of  war." — London  Morning  Chronicle. 


Democratic  Convention  of  1856  219 

he  saw,  or  fancied  he  saw,  from  the  continuance  of  the  dispute  an 
electioneering  advantage  to  himself.1 

While  discharging  his  diplomatic  function,  Mr.  Buchanan 
kept  in  touch  with  home  politics  through  intimate  friends. 
He  was  in  the  confidence  of  the  Virginians,  who  had  early 
determined  on  their  course  in  the  Cincinnati  convention,  and 
he  was  prepared  to  meet  the  overtures  of  his  old  enemies  in 
Pennsylvania,  who  had  been  brought  into  line  with  wonderful 
tact  by  John  W.  Forney  and  other  friends.2  Public  demon 
strations  followed  his  arrival  at  New  York  in  the  spring,  which 
created  a  good  deal  of  uneasiness  at  Washington.  When  the 
national  convention  assembled  at  Cincinnati  on  the  2d  of 
June,  1856,  there  was  a  good  deal  of  enthusiasm  in  the  air 
for  Douglas,  but  in  the  convention  the  real  contest  was  be 
tween  Pierce  and  Buchanan.  The  latter  was  represented  by 
solid  delegations  from  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  Delaware, 
Louisiana  and  Indiana,  strong  backing  from  New  York  and 
Ohio,  and  by  Senators  Slidell,  Benjamin,  Bayard  and  Bright, 
whose  personal  influence  in  the  party  was  never  greater  than 
at  that  time.  Pierce  had  the  support  of  the  office-holders,  and 
divided  with  Douglas  the  illusory  gratitude  of  some  of  the 
Southern  States.  The  contentions  of  the  New  York  factions 
occupied  the  attention  of  the  convention  for  two  days,  and 
were  finally  settled  by  the  admission  of  equal  representation. 
The  majority  report  of  the  Committee  on  Credentials  proposed 

1  London  Times,  Oct.  29,  1856,  in  »vhich  the  editor  more  particularly  describes 
Mr.  Buchanan's  character  :   "  He  is  a  thorough-paced  demagogue  and  unscrupulous 
partisan,  and  though  unexceptionable  in  private  life,  has  grown  gray  among  all 
manner  of  intrigues  and  manoeuvres." 

2  Forney  was  made  chairman  of  the  State  Central  Committee,  and  conducted 
the    campaign  with  masterly  skill.      The  State  convention,   held  at  Harrisburg 
March  4th,  was  something  like  a  Methodist  experience-meeting — the  front  seats 
were  reserved  for  Buchanan's  old  enemies,  who  confessed  their  sins  with  great  vol 
ubility.     See  pamphlet  edited  by  James  B.  Sheridan,  pp.  1-90.     In  a  letter  (Feb. 
1 2th)  to  Gov.  Bigler,  Mr.  Buchanan  facilitates  the  work  of  reconciliation:   "  When 
we  meet  again,  let  us  meet  as  though  no  estrangement  had  ever  existed  between 
us,  and  it  shall  not  be  my  fault  if  we  should  not  remain  friends  as  long  as  we  both 
may  live." 


220  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

to  give  to  the  Softs  headed  by  Horatio  Seymour  representa 
tion  based  on  their  greater  numerical  strength  in  the  State; 
but  Senator  Bayard  adroitly  met  this  by  reciting  the  incon 
sistent  record  of  the  Softs  and  holding  up  to  the  admiration  of 
the  convention  the  staunch  orthodoxy  of  the  Democracy  of 
the  Hards.  The  fact  could  not  be  blinked  that  as  recently  as 
in  August  of  the  previous  year  the  Softs  had  in  convention 
at  Syracuse  declared  "  their  fixed  hostility  to  the  extension 
of  slavery  into  free  territory,"  and  denounced  the  "subversion 
of  the  rights  of  the  bona-fide  settlers  of  Kansas  by  armed 
borderers  ";  and  although  later  they  had  recanted,  would  it 
be  right  to  punish  a  loyal  section  of  the  party  for  maintaining 
their  principles  with  fidelity  at  the  expense  of  diminished 
votes,  and  to  reward  with  increased  powers  a  section  which 
faltered  in  allegiance?  The  convention,  by  a  close  vote, 
decided  that  it  would  not  be  right,  and  adopted  the  minority 
report.  Mr.  Bayard  declared  that  if  the  Softs  had  adhered  to 
their  Syracuse  platform  they  would  have  been  excluded  from 
the  convention  at  Cincinnati. 

The  Hards  voted  for  Buchanan  and  the  Softs  for  Pierce 
until  after  the  withdrawal  of  his  name,  when  they  voted  for 
Douglas.  The  latter  might  have  prevented  the  casting  of  a 
two-thirds  vote  for  Buchanan,  and  thus  have  defeated  his 
nomination,  but  he  magnanimously  instructed  his  supporters 
when  it  was  demonstrated  that  he  could  not  be  nominated, 
to  cast  their  votes  for  his  opponent.  At  no  time  was  Doug 
las's  strength  sufficient  to  control  the  action  of  the  convention 
in  any  particular.1  The  ticket  was  completed  by  nominating 

1  "  A  consultation  was  held  at  my  house,  the  evening  before  the  meeting  of  the 
convention,  and  it  was  evident  that  if  the  New  York  delegation,  represented  by 
Mr.  Dean  Richmond  and  his  associates  who  were  known  as  the  '  Softs,'  secured 
seats,  that  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Douglas  was  inevitable." — Letter  of  S.  M.  Bar 
low,  of  New  York,  to  Geo.  T.  Curtis,  Life  of  Buchanan,  vol.  ii.,  p.  171. 

If  there  were  no  other  evidence  to  refute  the  statement  of  Mr.  Barlow,  the  fact 
that  the  Softs  voted  for  Pierce  until  his  name  was  withdrawn  on  the  fifteenth 
ballot  would  be  sufficient.  The  result  of  the  contest  was  foreshadowed  when  on 
the  sixth  ballot  Tennessee  cast  a  solid  vote  for  Buchanan.  The  South  would  not 
trust  Douglas  and  his  squatter-sovereignty  policy  which  meant  their  defeat. 


Democratic  Convention  of  1856  221 

for  Vice-President  John  C.  Breckinridge  of  Kentucky,  who 
had  already  won  some  distinction  in  the  House  as  the  repre 
sentative  of  the  Ashland  district. 

The  platform  of  principles  may  not  be  dismissed  with  a 
word,  as  it  bears  an  important  relation  to  the  history  of  the 
time.  It  was  the  joint  product  of  four  remarkable  men — 
Benj.  F.  Hallett  of  Massachusetts,  Pierre  Soule  of  Louisi 
ana,  Clement  L.  Vallandigham  of  Ohio  and  Wilbur  F. 
Storey  of  Michigan — skilful  in  the  use  of  language  in  the 
exposition  or  concealment  of  ideas,  bold  in  political  concep 
tions,  but  able  and  adroit  in  arousing  and  appealing  to  party 
prejudices  and  in  directing  public  sentiment.  The  most  dis 
tinctively  party  resolutions  of  all  previous  Democratic  plat 
forms  were  reaffirmed;  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
was  endorsed,  and  the  "right  of  the  people  of  all  the  territories 
acting  through  the  legally  and  fairly  expressed  will  of  the 
majority  of  the  actual  residents,  and  whenever  the  number  of 
their  inhabitants  justifies  it,  to  form  a  constitution,"  was 
recognized.  It  will  be  seen  later  on  that  while  this  was  an 
endorsement  of  Douglas's  doctrine  of  "popular  sovereignty," 
it  contained  a  qualification  which  shortly  proved  a  bone  of 
contention  in  the  factional  warfare. 

The  concluding  resolutions,  however,  more  distinctly 
marked  the  progressive  purposes  of  the  Democratic  party  as 
the  instrument  of  the  slavery  propagandists  to  make  the  prin 
ciples  and  compromises  of  the  Constitution  cover  the  Union 
as  they  hoped  to  remodel  it  by  extending  its  limits  to  embrace 
Cuba  and  the  Central  American  states  bordering  on  the  Gulf 
of  Mexico.  This  extension  would  surely  accomplish  what 
they  had  failed  to  accomplish  in  the  invasion  of  Mexico, — it 
would  readjust  the  whole  balance  of  power  in  the  Union,  so 
as  to  give  the  South  control  over  the  operations  of  the  gov 
ernment  in  all  time  to  come.1 

Europe  has  not  forgotten  [said  the  London  Times*"}  the  unseemly 
spectacle  of  the  Congress  of  Ostend,  when  the  representatives  of 

1  Charleston  Courier  in  1844.  2  October  29,  1856. 


222  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

America  in  Europe  met  together,  under  the  presidency  of  Mr. 
Soule,  to  hold  a  conference  on  the  best  manner  of  attacking  the 
governments  of  friendly  states  and  acquiring  the  lands  of  weaker 
powers. 

The  Democratic  party  placed  in  nomination  for  President  one 
of  the  diplomats  who  signed  the  Ostend  menace,  and  another 
embodied  in  the  platform  of  that  party,  adopted  with  mani 
festations  of  enthusiasm  by  its  delegated  representatives,  the 
same  principles.  These  briefly  expressed  were  :  That  Cuba  in 
the  possession  of  Spain  seriously  endangered  the  internal 
peace  and  the  existence  of  our  cherished  Union ;  and  that 
sympathy  should  be  extended  to  the  people  of  Central  Amer 
ica  engaged  in  regenerating  that  portion  of  the  continent.1 
To  this  end  the  next  administration  was  instructed  to  take 
such  measures  as  would  insure  our  ascendancy  in  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico. 

This  was  raising  a  false  issue,  as  in  the  case  of  Texas,  in 
confident  expectation  that  the  new  administration  would  em 
ploy  whatever  means  were  necessary  to  the  end.  This  expec 
tation  was  stimulated  to  enthusiasm  when  Mr.  Buchanan  on 
being  notified  of  his  nomination,  after  the  formal  interview, 
remarked  in  the  presence  of  the  whole  audience  that,  if  he 
could  be  instrumental  in  settling  the  slavery  question  on  the 
principles  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act,  and  then  add  Cuba  to 
the  Union,  he  "would  be  willing  to  give  up  the  ghost  and  let 
Breckinridge  take  the  government."  "Could  there  be  a  more 
noble  ambition?"  asks  the  distinguished  Southerner  who 
describes  for  us  the  interview,  and  who,  to  quiet  any  appre 
hensions  of  his  compatriots,  adds:  "In  my  judgment  he  is  as 
worthy  of  Southern  confidence  and  Southern  votes  as  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  ever  was."  2 

During  the  winter  of    1855-6,   disquieting  rumors  reached 

1  The  accepted  meaning  of  "  regenerating  Central  America"  was  more  concisely 
than  elegantly  expressed  by  a  prominent  Democrat  of  Pennsylvania,  in  a  letter 
to  Jefferson  Davis  :   "  I  should  like  to  go  to  Nicaragua  and  help  open  it  to  civil 
ization  and  niggers."     The  barbarians  of  Nicaragua  excluded  slavery. 

2  Letter   of   A.   G.    Brown,    of    Mississippi,   to  S.   R.  Adams,  June   18,    1856. 
Pamphlet,  pp.  1-24. 


First  Republican  Convention  223 

Mr.  Seward  of  a  movement  having  for  its  purpose  the  nomina 
tion  of  presidential  candidates  by  a  fusion  convention  on  the 
Ohio  plan.  It  did  not  meet  his  approval.  He  protested 
against  any  combination  with  Know-Nothings,  as  likely  to 
divert  public  attention  from  the  real  issue.1  The  persistence 
with  which  a  fusion  was  advocated  by  active  Republicans 
doubtless  influenced  his  decision  not  to  permit  his  name  to  go 
before  any  convention. 

At  this  time  the  Republican  party  was  without  national 
organization.  The  name  had  been  adopted  in  some  of  the 
States,  but  the  victories  won  in  1854  and  1855  had  been  won 
by  Whigs,  Free  Democrats  and  Americans  under  the  banner 
of  anti-Nebraska.  Any  plan  that  would  keep  these  together 
was  practical  opposition  to  the  administration  and  to  slavery 
extension.  The  prolonged  contest  for  Speaker  which  resulted 
in  the  election  of  Nathaniel  P.  Banks,  Jr.,  afforded  an  oppor 
tunity  for  consultation  and  for  a  full  discussion  of  plans  for 
the  overthrow  of  Democracy.  Francis  P.  Blair  was  brought 
into  the  scheme,  and  became  the  Nestor  in  the  work  of  organi 
zation.  The  success  met  by  Thomas  L.  Spooner  and  Thos. 
H.  Ford  in  holding  the  Americans  to  the  support  of  Mr. 
Chase  in  the  gubernatorial  campaign  encouraged  the  belief 
that  fusion  could  be  effected  on  a  more  extended  theatre.  It 
was  finally  decided  to  call  a  meeting  at  Pittsburg,  to  be  held 
during  the  same  week  in  which  an  American  convention 
would  sit  in  Philadelphia.2 

The  first  National  Republican  Convention  which  convened 
at  Pittsburg  on  the  22d  of  February,  1856,  was  not  a  delegate 
convention  as  now  understood,  nor  strictly  speaking  a  Repub 
lican  party  convention.  It  was  a  meeting  for  conference  in 
which  men  not  classed  as  Republicans  participated.  The  new 
party  was  not  organized  in  Illinois  3  and  other  Northern  States 

1  Seward  at  Washington,  vol.  ii.,  p.  264. 

9  The  call  for  the  convention  was  signed  by  the  chairmen  of  the  Republican 
committees  of  Ohio,  Massachusetts,  Pennsylvania,  Michigan,  Vermont  and 
Wisconsin. 

3  An  organization  was  effected  at  Bloomington  May  2gth,  when  Col.  \V.  H. 
Bissell  was  nominated  for  Governor. — Nicolay  and  Hay,  vol.  ii.,  chap.  ii. 


224  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

until  after  this  Pittsburg  meeting.  There  were  persons  pre 
sent  from  all  of  the  Northern  and  from  eight  Southern  States, 
and  large  numbers  from  Ohio,  New  York  and  Pennsylvania, 
among  whom  were  several  representative  Germans,  heretofore 
seen  only  in  Democratic  meetings.  The  delegates  were  not 
only  representative  men,  but  leaders  already  distinguished  in 
old  party  organizations.  Edwin  D.  Morgan,  Preston  King 
and  Horace  Greeley  attended  from  New  York;  Joshua  R. 
Giddings,  Charles  Reemelin,  Judge  Brinkerhoff,  Rufus  P. 
Spalding,  W.  H.  Gibson,  R.  B.  Hayes  and  William  Den- 
nison  from  Ohio ;  Zachariah  Chandler  and  Governor  Bingham 
headed  a  Michigan  delegation  of  the  men  who  had  already 
effected  a  revolution  in  the  politics  of  that  State ;  George  W. 
Julian  attended  from  Indiana  and  John  C.  Vaughan  from 
Illinois. 

Francis  P.  Blair,  who  had  been  delegated  by  a  meeting  of 
Baltimore  merchants  to  confer  with  the  Republican  leaders, 
was  made  permanent  chairman.  His  participation  created  a 
sensation,  and  was  symptomatic  of  political  tendencies. 

On  taking  the  chair,  he  said : 

Very  few  delegations  are  with  us  from  the  Southern  States,  for 
the  people  of  the  South  think  this  is  an  association  intended  for  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  slave  States;  but  when  they  understand 
that  its  object  is  to  prevent  a  nullification  of  the  rights  of  the  North, 
you  will  find  a  very  different  feeling,  and  there  will  be  a  response 
from  the  South  that  will  astonish  the  North  itself. 

This  sanguine  prediction,  although  destined  to  the  fate  of  other 
airy  fabrics,  gave  rise  to  a  feeling  of  satisfaction  and  of  bright 
anticipation,  for  the  Republicans  were  anxious  to  convince 
the  South  that  their  disclaimer  of  any  purpose  to  interfere 
with  the  domestic  institution  in  the  States  was  made  in  perfect 
good  faith,  and  that  their  principles  were  both  national  and 
constitutional.1 

1  A  letter  from  Chief  Justice  Hornblower  of  New  Jersey  was  read,  which  con 
tained  this  specific  declaration  :  "I  could  act  harmoniously  with  no  party  that 
would  by  Congressional  legislation  or  by  any  violent  or  revolutionary  conduct 
attempt  to  interfere  with  the  municipal  regulations  of  any  State  that  chooses  to 


First  Republican  Convention  225 

Let  the  North  ask  nothing  but  what  is  clearly  right  [continued 
Mr.  Blair],  and  submit  to  nothing  that  is  wrong,  and  it  cannot  fail 
to  bring  the  quarrel  to  an  honorable  termination.  .  .  .  The 
repeal  of  the  repealing  clause  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  would 
be  the  finale  of  all  the  existing  commotions  and  of  the  eager  ambi 
tion  which  originated  them.  If  this  single  line  is  inscribed  on  our 
flag  we  shall  conquer  under  it.  It  will  be  the  Union  flag. 

Impressed  with  the  wisdom  of  this  suggestion,  the  convention 
ignored  individual  predilections.  There  was  a  contest  among 
the  Ohioans  between  the  conservative  and  radical  elements 
which  terminated  in  the  selection  of  Mr.  Dennison  instead  of 
Mr.  Giddings  to  represent  the  State  on  resolutions  and  address. 
The  platform  avoided  all  issues  upon  which  there  could  be  any 
marked  difference  of  opinion  among  the  people  of  the  free 
States,  and  kept  to  the  front  the  great  issue  of  slavery  exten 
sion,  the  overthrow  of  the  sectional  oligarchy,  and  confining 
the  general  government  to  the  limitations  and  restrictions  of 
the  Constitution. 

The  proceedings  were  interrupted  to  have  read  the  following 
telegram  which  requires  no  explanation : 

PHILADELPHIA,  Thursday. 

The  American  party  are  no  longer  united.  Raise  the  Republican 
banner.  Let  there  be  no  further  extension  of  slavery.  The  Ameri 
cans  are  with  you. 

THOXMAS  SPOONER. 

As  Mr.  Reemelin  announced  the  adherence  of  the  majority  of 
German  citizens  to  the  principles  of  the  new  party  of  freedom, 
the  act  of  the  lion  and  the  lamb  may  be  said  to  have  been 
performed  at  the  Pittsburg  convention,  which  possesses  great 
historical  importance.  Its  proceedings  were  characterized  by 
a  display  of  dignity,  sincerity  of  purpose  and  moderation 
worthy  of  a  great  party  which  was  here  founded.  The  ad 
dress  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  whose  publication 
soon  followed,  prepared  the  way  for  the  national  delegate 

retain  and  cherish  the  institution  [of  slavery]  within  its  own  territorial  limits." 
This  sentiment  generally  prevailed  in  the  North,  and  was  the  sentiment  of  the 

Republican  party. 
VOL.  i.— 15. 


226  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

convention  which  convened  in  Philadelphia  June  i8th,  and 
nominated  John  C.  Fremont  of  California  for  President  and 
William  L.  Dayton  of  New  Jersey  for  Vice-President. 

"The  nomination  at  Philadelphia,"  wrote  Mr.  Seward,  "I 
hope  will  not  disappoint  its  inventors."  1  Its  wisdom  was 
doubted  by  many  early  anti-slavery  men  and  by  many  Whigs. 
It  was  strenuously  opposed  by  the  Pennsylvania  delegation 
headed  by  Thaddeus  Stevens,  who  declared  that  the  only  man 
who  could  carry  the  Keystone  State  against  a  Democrat  was 
John  McLean,  and  it  was  thought  that  the  result  of  the  presi 
dential  election  would  turn  on  her  electoral  vote.  It  was  be 
lieved  that  the  old  Whigs  in  the  American  party  would  vote 
for  him  in  preference  to  any  other,  and  that  the  conservatives 
generally  would  be  pleased  with  his  nomination.  The  anti- 
slavery  element  distrusted  Judge  McLean — unjustly,  for  they 
did  not  give  due  weight  to  his  responsibilities  as  a  conscien 
tious  judge  in  interpreting  the  law  and  the  Constitution. 
With  a  view  to  reconcile  this  class  to  Judge  McLean,  in  May, 
Samuel  Galloway, Governor  Pennington,  Samuel  A.  Purviance, 
William  Cumback  and  other  members  of  Congress  addressed 
a  letter  to  Judge  Leavitt,  inquiring  if  Judge  McLean  had 
made  any  suggestion  to  him  in  relation  to  his  decision  in  the 
Margaret  Garner  habeas  corpus  case.  Judge  Leavitt  replied 
that  Judge  McLean  was  in  Washington  when  that  decision 
was  made  and  had  no  part  in  it.  This  correspondence  did 
not  change  the  current.  The  Free  Democrats  preferred  Mr. 
Chase.  But  there  was  a  disposition  to  give  the  new  party  for 
a  candidate  a  young  man  who  was  free  from  political  com 
plications.  This  was  urged  by  Mr.  Blair  and  Mr.  Greeley  with 
so  much  earnestness  and  shrewdness  as  to  capture  the  masses. 
In  April  it  was  reported  from  several  States  that  the  Fremont 
movement  was  going  like  a  prairie  fire.2  The  Germans  were 

1  Letter  of  June  igth. 

8  The  Life  and  Times  of  Samuel  Boivles,  vol.  i.,  p.  172.  "I  accept  my  full 
share  of  responsibility.  I  felt  that  Col.  Fremont's  adventurous,  dashing  career 
had  given  him  popularity  with  our  young  men  especially." — Greeley 's  Recollections 
of  a  Busy  Life,  p.  354. 


Kansas  Debate  in  Senate  227 

displaying  a  good  deal  of  enthusiasm  for  the  adventurous  ex 
plorer,  and  now  that  a  majority  of  the  German  papers  of  the 
country  had  repudiated  Democracy  and  espoused  Republican 
principles — even  two  or  three  in  the  South — this  important 
element  could  not  be  overlooked  in  any  estimate  of  political 
forces.1  The  informal  ballot  in  the  convention  showed  the 
unmistakable  purpose  of  the  new  party  to  ignore  the  claims  of 
experienced  leaders.  There  were  359  votes  cast  for  John  C. 
Fremont  and  196  for  Judge  McLean. 

Having  selected  a  Democrat  for  the  first  place,  the  conven 
tion  proceeded  to  nominate  a  Whig  for  Vice-President.  The 
preference  of  the  friends  of  Judge  McLean  was  regarded,  and 
William  L.  Dayton  of  New  Jersey,  a  statesman  of  tried  abil 
ity  and  high  character,  was  chosen.  Abraham  Lincoln,  his 
chief  competitor,  received  no  votes,  but  for  him  Fate  had  in 
store  a  grander  destiny. 

Before  the  meeting  of  the  national  conventions,  a  prolonged 
and  animated  debate  had  taken  place  in  the  Senate  on  the  com 
plicated  affairs  of  Kansas,  during  which  party  politics  received 
a  large  share  of  attention.  On  the  4th  of  April,  Mr.  Douglas 
with  masterly  tact  brought  into  view  the  dissensions  and  con 
flicting  counsels  inside  of  the  anti-Nebraska  opposition.  The 
Republicans  were  pledged  : 

To  oppose  "the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States  " ; 

To  repeal  the  fugitive  slave  law ; 

To  abolish  the  slave  trade  between  the  States ; 

To  prohibit  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia; 

To  restore  the  Missouri  Compromise ; 

To  acquire  no  more  territory  unless  slavery  should  be  first 
prohibited. 

There  were  rumors  afloat,  said  the  Illinois  Senator,  that  the 
Republicans  were  about  to  strike  their  colors ;  to  retire  all  the 

1  See  Cincinnati  Volksblatt,  edited  by  Stephen  Molitor;  the  New  York  Abend 
Zeitung ,  then  edited  by  the  erudite  Herman  Raster;  and  the  Chicago  Staats 
Zeitung,  edited  by  Herman  Kreisman.  The  Southern  papers  were  :  the  St. 
Louis  Anzeiger  des  Westens,  the  New  Orleans  Deutsche  Zeitung,  and  the  San 
Antonio  Zeitung, 


228  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

bold  men  who  had  distinguished  themselves  in  fighting  the 
anti-Nebraska  fight,  and  to  take  a  new  man,  who,  in  conse 
quence  of  not  being  committed  to  either  side,  would  be  enabled 
to  cheat  somebody  by  getting  votes  from  all  sorts  of  men ;  that 
in  pursuance  of  this  line  of  policy  the  committees  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  were  not  allowed  to  introduce  bills  to  re 
deem  Republican  pledges  and  promote  party  principles;  that 
no  bill  was  to  be  permitted  to  pass  in  the  fusion  House  to 
repeal  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act,  or  the  fugitive  slave  law,  or 
to  carry  out  any  of  the  principles  upon  which  a  majority  had 
been  secured  by  a  fusion  with  Northern  Know-Nothingism. 
Addressing  himself  particularly  to  Mr.  Seward,  the  acknowl 
edged  head  of  the  opposition,  Mr.  Douglas  said  he  trusted 
there  would  be  no  lowering  of  the  flag,  no  evading  or  dodging 
the  issue,  that  each  party  would  stand  by  its  principles  and 
the  issues  as  the  Republicans  had  presented  them,  and  that 
there  would  be  a  fair,  bold  fight  before  the  people  on  which 
their  verdict  should  be  pronounced.  Mr.  Seward  assured  the 
Illinois  Senator  there  should  be  no  lowering  of  the  flag,  no 
dodging  of  issues. 

What  was  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter?  The  rugged 
issues  as  presented  above,  which  had  been  pressed  to  the  front 
by  general  agreement  of  anti-slavery  men  of  all  parties  in  the 
North,  were  retired  for  the  more  prudent  counsel  of  Mr.  Blair, 
which  met  with  favor  at  the  Pittsburg  convention  Feb.  22d. 
The  call  had  been  addressed  "to  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  without  regard  to  past  political  differences  or  divi 
sions,"  who  were  opposed  to  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Com 
promise,  to  the  policy  of  the  Pierce  administration,  and  to  the 
extension  of  slavery  into  free  territory.  This  embraced  thous 
ands  who  were  opposed  to  the  repeal  of  the  fugitive  slave  act, 
to  meddling  with  the  interstate  slave  trade  or  with  slavery  in 
the  District.  There  was  no  resolution  in  favor  of  repealing 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  act,  but  in  lieu  thereof  a  broad  declara 
tion  that  the  Constitution  confers  upon  Congress  sovereign 
power  over  the  territories  of  the  United  States  for  their  gov 
ernment,  and  that  in  the  exercise  of  this  power  it  was  both  the 


Kansas  Debate  in  Senate  229 

right  and  the  imperative  duty  of  Congress  to  prohibit  in  the 
territories  "those  twin  relics  of  barbarism — polygamy  and 
slavery."  The  platform  arraigned  the  administration  for  the 
condition  of  civil  war  in  Kansas,  to  cure  which  its  immediate 
admission  under  the  Topeka  constitution  was  demanded ;  a 
railroad  to  the  Pacific  was  recommended  ;  river  and  harbor  im 
provements  approved  of;  and  the  Ostend  circular  denounced 
as  unworthy  of  American  diplomacy.  At  the  instance  of  Mr. 
Giddings,  a  resolution  was  adopted  reaffirming  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  in  graceful  phraseology ;  and  to  reassure  the 
German  recruits,  as  well  as  in  recognition  of  the  opinions  of 
Mr.  Seward,  Mr.  Greeley,  Mr.  Julian  and  others  who  disap 
proved  of  the  principles  of  the  Know-Nothings,  this  further 
declaration  was  added,  from  which  there  never  has  been  any 
departure:  "Believing  that  the  spirit  of  our  institutions,  as 
well  as  the  Constitution  of  our  country,  guarantees  liberty  of 
conscience  and  equality  of  right  among  citizens,  we  oppose  all 
prescriptive  legislation  affecting  this  security." 

There  was  something  about  restoring  the  government  to 
the  principles  of  Washington  and  Jefferson,  but  as  these  ex 
hibit  sharp  antagonisms,  of  which  the  people  in  general  were 
supposed  to  be  ignorant,  each  one  was  left  to  construe  this  to 
suit  his  preconceived  notions. 

Mr.  Seward's  declaration  that  this  was  "a  complete  Seward 
platform  "  :  is  hard  to  reconcile  with  the  colloquy  between 
him  and  Mr.  Douglas,  and  with  the  advanced  views  expressed 
in  his  speeches.  But  undoubtedly  a  certain  amount  of  Mark 
Tapleyism  is  essential  in  the  make-up  of  a  political  leader. 

The  mid-winter  convention  of  the  American  party  at  Phila 
delphia  had  been  stormy  and  resulted  in  a  rupture.  The  action 
developed  the  strength  of  anti-slavery  sentiment  in  the  North 
ern  States,  for  the  convention  expunged  the  famous  twelfth 

1  "  The  truth  is  that  it  was  intended  to  have  the  platform  silent  on  the  American 
question  ;  but  to  have  the  nominations  represent  a  coalition  of  Republicans  and 
Americans  (ignoring  my  principles  for  this  time).  But  Dr.  Bailey's  protest,  through 
Mr.  Giddings,  prevented  that,  and  now  we  have  a  complete  Seward  platform,  with 
new  representative  men  upon  it." — Seivard  at  Washington,  vol.  ii.,  p.  279. 


230  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

section  of  the  creed  adopted  in  1855,  which  declared  the  purpose 
of  the  American  party  "to  abide  by  and  maintain  the  existing 
laws  upon  slavery  as  a  final  and  conclusive  settlement  of  that 
subject  in  spirit  and  in  substance,"  which  denied  to  Congress 
any  power  under  the  Constitution  to  exclude  a  State,  and 
which  opposed  all  legislation  upon  the  subject  of  slavery 
either  in  the  territories  or  the  District  of  Columbia,  and 
adopted  another,  the  whole  object  of  which  was  to  dodge 
the  subject  of  controversy.  This  attitude  of  neutrality  pro 
duced  a  division.1  The  Southern  section  nominated  Millard 
Fillmore  for  President,  and  Andrew  J.  Donelson  of  Tennessee 
for  Vice-President.  The  Northern  delegates  nominated  Na 
thaniel  P.  Banks,  but  on  his  declining  they  followed  him  into 
the  Republican  party. 

The  small  and  respectable  Whig  party  remaining  in  the 
country  met  at  Baltimore,  September  i/th,  and  endorsed  the 
nominations  made  by  the  Southern  American  party.  It  con 
demned  geographical  parties  and  expressed  the  conviction  that 
the  restoration  of  Mr.  Fillmore  to  the  presidency  would  fur 
nish  the  best  if  not  the  only  means  of  restoring  peace. 

The  nomination  of  Fremont  was  received  with  great  satis 
faction  throughout  the  North,  and  as  the  campaign  progressed 
the  enthusiasm  became  unprecedented.  The  romantic  inci 
dents  of  his  career — his  birth,  his  expulsion  from  a  college 
that  afterward  gave  him  his  degree,  his  experience  as  a  teacher 
of  mathematics,  his  services  as  assistant  engineer  in  the  topo 
graphical  corps,  his  explorations  with  Jean  Nicolas  Nicollet 
on  the  head  waters  of  the  Mississippi,  his  clandestine  marriage 
with  the  brilliant  and  accomplished  daughter  of  Colonel 
Thomas  H.  Benton,  his  hazardous  explorations  for  scientific 
purposes  in  that  terra  incognita  the  Rocky  Mountain  regions 

1  The  Ohio  delegation,  headed  by  Lieut. -Governor  Ford,  Joseph  H.  Barrett  of 
Vermont  and  delegates  less  conspicuous  from  other  Northern  States,  signed  a 
protest  against  the  platform  of  the  American  party,  "holding  the  opinion  that 
restoration  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  demanded  by  the  freemen  of  the  North, 
is  a  redress  of  undeniable  wrong  and  the  least  indispensable  to  the  repose  of  the 
country." 


Popularity  of  Fremont  231 

and  on  the  Pacific  coast,  his  dashing  expedition  to  California 
and  connection  with  the  admission  of  that  Spanish  province 
into  the  American  Union, — these  supplied  the  topics  of  con 
versation  in  social  life  and  became  the  themes  of  public 
speakers  and  of  the  press.  Fremont's  judicious  utterances  at 
this  time  deepened  the  favorable  impression.  Before  mid 
summer  the  Democrats  showed  signs  of  alarm,  while  the  Re 
publicans  were  sanguine  of  success.1  "I  am  not  apt  to  be  very 
sanguine,"  wrote  John  G,  Whittier,  "but  I  certainly  have 
strong  hopes  of  Fremont's  election.  I  think  I  see  the  finger 
of  Providence  in  his  nomination.  It  appeals  to  all  that  is  good 
and  generous  in  Young  America.  It  touches  the  popular 
heart."2 

The  drift  toward  Republicanism  was  accelerated  by  the  vio 
lence  displayed  in  behalf  of  a  political  policy  that  had  for  its 
purpose  the  intrenchment  in  control  of  the  government  of  a 
minority  representing  principles  repugnant  to  civilization,  re 
pugnant  to  the  progressive  spirit  of  the  Republic.  In  the 
Senate  Chamber  on  the  22d  of  May  freedom  of  speech  and  the 
sovereignty  of  Massachusetts,  represented  by  her  distinguished 
Senator,  Charles  Sumner,  were  violently  assailed  by  Preston 
S.  Brooks,  a  representative  of  South  Carolina.  Mr.  Sumner 
had  occupied  two  days  in  the  delivery  of  a  speech  of  great 
power  on  the  Kansas  question,  and  towards  the  close  in  reply 
to  repeated  personal  assaults  on  himself  had  spoken  in  lan 
guage  of  great  severity,  but  within  parliamentary  rules  and 
without  being  called  to  order,  of  the  course  of  Senators 
Mason,  Douglas  and  Butler,  the  last  of  whom  was  absent. 
Two  days  afterwards,  while  Mr.  Sumner  was  writing  at  his 
desk  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Senate,  he  was  accosted  by 
Brooks,  who  immediately  struck  him  upon  the  head  with  a 
heavy  cane,  and  repeated  the  blows  many  times  after  the 
Senator  had  sunk  to  the  floor  insensible,  exhausted  and 
covered  with  his  own  blood.  The  assailant  was  accompanied 
by  his  colleague  Keitt,  who,  fully  armed,  interposed  to 

1  Seivard  at  Washington,  vol.  ii.,  p.  279. 

*  Life  and  Letters,  by  Samuel  T.  Pickard,  vol.  i.,  p.  386. 


232  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

prevent  any  interference.1  The  Democratic  majority  of  the 
Senate  pleaded  want  of  jurisdiction ;  while  in  the  House,  a 
motion  to  expel  Brooks  having  failed  for  lack  of  the  requisite 
two-thirds  vote,  a  resolution  of  censure  was  adopted,  where 
upon  he  and  Keitt  resigned.  They  were  promptly  re-elected 
and  were  honored  with  much  attention  by  their  party.  Even 
the  editor  of  the  administration  organ  in  Boston  and  the  col 
lector  of  that  port,  on  their  way  to  the  Cincinnati  convention, 
dined  in  a  friendly  way  with  Brooks.  And  John  Scott  Harri 
son,  representative  of  the  Second  District  of  Ohio,  who  had 
been  elected  on  an  anti-Nebraska  ticket,  spoke  on  the  floor 
of  the  House  in  exculpation  of  the  knight  of  the  bludgeon. 

While  this  scene  of  violence  was  being  enacted  in  the  Capi 
tol,  another  part  of  the  same  act  of  the  drama  of  human  wrong 
was  in  progress  on  the  plains  of  Kansas.  An  army  of  border 
ruffians,  armed  with  rifles  and  cannon,  were  sacking  and  de 
stroying  the  town  of  Lawrence,  and  thus  was  civil  war  fairly 
inaugurated.  Emerson's  fine  burst  before  the  citizens  of  Con 
cord,  referring  in  particular  to  the  assault  on  Sumner,  covers 
the  whole  case:  "The  events  of  the  last  few  years  and  months 
and  days  have  taught  us  the  lessons  of  centuries.  I  do  not 
see  how  a  barbarous  community  and  a  civilized  community  can 
constitute  one  state.  I  think  we  must  get  rid  of  slavery,  or  we 
must  get  rid  of  freedom."  3  We  shall  see  what  a  commotion 
this  sentiment  made  later  when  employed  by  political  leaders. 

The  new  party  attracted  the  young  men  as  a  party  advocat 
ing  living  principles,  while  the  romantic  career  of  its  leader 
exhibited  deeds  of  endurance  and  perseverance  worthy  of 
emulation.  He  was  not  only  "the  Pathfinder  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains,"  but  one  of  the  founders  of  a  new  State  rescued 
from  the  grasp  of  the  slaveholder;  adventurous,  too,  in  the 
pursuit  of  science.  Enthusiasm  was  infectious.  Elizabeth 
Whittier  expressed  the  admiration  of  her  sex  when  she  de- 

1  Keitt  on  the  floor  of  the  House  denied  active  participation  in  the  assault,  but 
the  evidence  was  against  him.     Mr.  Edmondson,  who  was  also  present,  took  no 
part. 

2  Speech  in  Concord,  May  26,  1856.      Works,  vol.  xi. 


Growth  of  Republican  Party  233 

clared  that  Fremont  was  her  hero  of  years,  and  that  his  wild 
ranger  life  had  had  the  greatest  charm  for  her.-1 

Almost  the  entire  college  and  school  influence  of  the  North  ; 
the  distinguished  men  of  letters  whose  fame  was  world-wide, 
—Longfellow,  Emerson,  Lowell,  Motley,  Whittier,  Curtis, 
Bryant,  Dana,  Holmes, — and  the  most  influential  part  of  the 
press,  were  all  enlisted  in  the  cause  and  were  recognized  as  the 
authoritative  leaders  of  public  opinion.  The  ministers  con 
tinued  to  be  divided  into  two  classes:  one  class  holding  with 
Dr.  Arnold  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Church  "to  put  down 
all  moral  evil,  either  within  the  body  or  out  of  it  "  ;  the  other 
that  all  political  questions  should  be  excluded  from  the  pulpit; 
that  to  discuss  the  question  of  slavery  was  to  breed  uncharita- 
bleness  and  manifold  other  evils,  to  increase  the  hardships  of 
those  in  bonds  and  to  endanger  the  Union.  The  first  class 
was  betrayed  by  its  zeal  into  exaggeration  and  misrepresenta 
tion  of  the  state  of  slavery,  while  the  other,  sustained  chiefly 
by  the  mercantile  and  commercial  interests,  was  led  to  defend 
the  institution  as  a  moral  one,  and  to  uphold  the  administra 
tion  in  its  efforts  to  fasten  it  upon  Kansas. 

The  support  of  Fremont  was  spontaneous.  The  campaign, 
which  was  one  of  the  most  animated  ever  known,  was  carried 
on  by  the  people,  who  freely  gave  of  their  time  and  money  and 
constituted  their  own  committees  without  thought  or  expecta 
tion  of  reward.  The  public  feeling  found  expression,  not  in 
rollicking  songs,  as  in  1840,  but  in  more  serious  verse  which 
was  set  to  music  and  sung  at  all  important  gatherings.  This 
from  one  of  Whittier's  lyrics  will  serve  as  an  illustration : 

Sound,  sound  the  trumpet  fearlessly  ! 
Each  arm  its  vigor  lending, 
Bravely  with  wrong  contending, 
And  shouting  Freedom's  cry  ! 

The  Kansas  homes  stand  cheerlessly, 
The  sky  with  flame  is  ruddy, 
The  prairie  turf  is  bloody, 

Where  the  brave  and  gentle  die. 
Sound  the  trumpet  stern  and  steady  ! 
1  Letter  to  Lucy  Larcom,  June  19,  1856. 


234  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Sound  the  trumpet  strong  and  high  ! 

Country  and  Liberty  ! 

Freedom  and  Victory  ! 
These  words  shall  be  our  cry, — 

Fremont  and  Victory  ! 

The  nullifying  speech  of  Fillmore  1  was  rebuked  by  General 
Sam  Houston,  the  hero  of  Texas,  who  declared  that  if  Fremont 
were  elected  he  should  give  him  the  same  support  as  any  other 
man  elected  under  the  Constitution.  Throughout  this  whole 
controversy  Houston  displayed  qualities  of  statesmanship  and 
patriotism  unapproached  by  any  other  Democrat.  On  one 
occasion  he  declared  that  if  "the  Union  must  be  dismembered" 
he  "prayed  God  that  its  ruins  might  be  the  monument  of  his 
own  grave."  He  advocated  always  a  policy  of  toleration  and 
freedom  of  discussion.  His  courage,  fairness  and  intelligence 
endeared  him  to  Sumner  and  other  Northern  leaders.  The 
New  York  Evening  Post  commended  his  Boston  speech,  and 
declared  that  his  policy  was  a  basis  on  which  the  North  and 
the  South  could  permanently  unite. 

If  the  Republican  party  was  a  sectional  party,  as  charged 
by  Democratic  leaders,  so  was  the  Democratic  party  in  the 
opinion  of  many  Southern  Whigs.  The  Republican  party, 
said  one,  could  claim  to  be  a  national  party  with  as  much 
reason  as  the  Democratic,  which  expected  its  chief  if  not  en 
tire  support  from  the  South.2  "Mr.  Fremont  is  the  candidate 
of  the  North  against  the  South;  Mr.  Buchanan  is  the  candi 
date  of  the  South  against  the  North,"  said  Mr.  Underwood 

1  Mr.  Fillmore  was  travelling  in  Europe  when  he  was  nominated  by  the  Ameri 
can  party.  On  his  return  there  were  popular  demonstrations  in  his  honor  at  New 
Vrork.  Albany  and  Buffalo.  At  Albany  he  said  :  "  We  see  a  political  party,  pre 
senting  candidates  for  the  presidency  and  vice-presidency,  selected  for  the  first 
time  from  the  free  States  alone,  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  electing  these  candi 
dates  by  suffrages  of  one  part  of  the  Union  only,  to  rule  over  the  whole  United 
States.  Can  it  be  possible  that  those  who  are  engaged  in  such  a  measure  can 
have  seriously  reflected  upon  the  consequences  which  must  inevitably  follow  in 
case  of  success  ?  Can  they  have  the  madness  or  the  folly  to  believe  that  our  Southern 
brethren  would  submit  to  be  governed  by  such  a  chief  magistrate?" — Air.  Fill- 
more  at  Home.  Pamphlet,  pp.  1-24. 

'Speech  of  Mr.  Ready,  of  Tennessee,  Aug.  6,  1856.     App.,  Cong.  Globe. 


Southern  Republicans  Proscribed         235 

of  Kentucky,  who  added  that  this  war  of  the  sections  was  the 
danger  of  the  hour.1  The  mischievous  speech  of  Mr.  Fillmore 
found  echo  throughout  the  South  in  the  press  and  upon  the 
rostrum  and  in  the  halls  of  Congress.  The  election  of  Fre 
mont  would  justify  a  dissolution  of  the  Union. 

The  violence  and  intolerance  grew  apace.  Mr.  J.  C.  Under 
wood  of  Virginia,  an  intelligent  farmer  who  cultivated  his 
eight  hundred  acres  with  free  labor,  exercised  the  rights  of  a 
freeman  and  attended  the  Republican  convention  at  Phila 
delphia.  He  was  notified  by  a  committee  of  his  neighbors 
that  if  he  returned  his  life  would  be  forfeited,  and  his  wife  was 
given  a  brief  space  to  join  him.  They  became  exiles.  So  also 
did  Prof.  R.  S.  Hedrick  of  the  State  University  of  North 
Carolina.  He  declared  his  approval  of  the  principles  of  the 
Republican  platform  which  he  said  were  the  principles  of  the 
most  distinguished  Southern  statesmen  of  earlier  days.  He 
sustained  his  position  with  much  ability,  but  to  no  other  end 
than  to  be  made  a  martyr  to  his  plea  for  toleration.  '  The 
expression  of  Black  Republican  opinions  in  our  midst,"  wrote 
the  editor  of  the  Raleigh  Standard,  "is  incompatible  with  our 
honor  and  safety  as  a  people.  We  take  it  for  granted  Profes 
sor  Hedrick  will  be  promptly  removed."  Judge  Thompson, 
of  the  Brooke  Circuit  of  Virginia,  in  a  charge  to  the  grand 
jury,  gave  a  new  definition  of  treason  to  meet  the  political  con 
ditions  of  the  presidential  campaign — to  cover  the  acts  and 
opinions  of  all  who  denied  the  right  of  property  in  slaves,  who 
published  their  opinions,  advocated  the  election  of  Fremont, 
or  who  uttered  seditious  language  calculated  to  bring  about  a 
spirit  of  insubordination  for  the  overthrow  of  the  existing 
order  of  things.  "Any  internal  action,"  said  he,  "or  external 
movement  which  sets  up  a  state  within  the  State  is  a  usurpa 
tion.  It  is  treason  under  any  definition  of  treason  which  has 
been  given,  or  which  exists  in  any  civilized  country."  a  This 
tyrannical  charge  did  not  pass  unchallenged  in  Virginia,  and 

1  Ibid.,  Aug.  5th.     See  also  fifth  resolution  of  Whig  platform  adopted  at  Balti 
more,  Sept.  1 3th. 

2  Richmond  Enqiiirer. 


236  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

even  the  judge's  impeachment  was  recommended.  ' '  Far  better 
would  it  be,"  said  the  Petersburg  Intelligencer,  "for  the  man 
Fremont  to  be  elected  by  acclamation,  than  that  the  damnable 
doctrines  of  Judge  Thompson  should  prevail."  ' 

Brooks,  hero  of  the  bludgeon,  at  an  ovation  given  in  his 
honor  at  Ninety  Six,  said  that  he  had  been  a  disunionist  from 
the  time  he  could  think,  and  that  the  only  mode  left  to  the 
South  was  "to  tear  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
trample  it  under  foot,  and  form  a  Southern  confederacy," 
which  sentiment  was  received  with  tumultuous  applause.2  In 
a  short  time  Brooks,  as  a  Representative,  repeated  the  act  of 
perjury  by  taking  the  oath  to  support  the  Constitution.  But 
he  did  not  stand  alone. 

The  most  extraordinary  utterance,  however,  at  this  time, 
was  an  editorial  in  the  Richmond  Enquirer  advising  immediate 
secession  upon  the  election  of  Fremont.3  A  constitutional 
administration  was  admitted  to  be  a  possibility,  but  possession 
of  the  government  would  give  an  immense  advantage  to  the 
Northern  interest. 


If  secession  be  delayed  until  overt  acts  of  aggression  are  com 
mitted  on  the  South  it  must  be  attended  with  bloodshed — for  overt 
aggressions  will  not  be  attempted  until  preparation  is  made  to  use 
force.  If  Mr.  Fremont's  election  be  accepted  as  a  declaration  of 
war,  and  the  South  secede  immediately,  in  all  human  probability 
the  war  will  proceed  no  further  than  the  declaration.  By  prompt 
secession  we  will  close  the  avenues  of  federal  corruption  and  save 
our  people  from  influences  to  which  no  people,  however  virtuous, 
should  be  subjected.4 

1  John  Tyler  expressed  the  opinion  that  there  were  20,000  citizens  of  Virginia 
who  preferred  Fremont  for  President  rather  than  Buchanan.  They  were,  how 
ever,  under  the  tyranny  of  local  opinion  and  did  not  openly  risk  their  homes  as 
did  Mr.  Underwood.  See  Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers,  vol.  ii.,  p.  531. 

9  Charleston  papers. 

3  October  6th. 

4  This  view  as  to  policy  was  also  that  of  John  Tyler.     "  To  await  the  inaugura 
tion  is  to  find  ourselves  under  the  guns  of  every  fortification,  and  our  trade  at  the 
mercy  of  our  enemies.     It  is,  therefore,  the  dictate  of  prudence  that  the  Southern 


Threats  of  Secession  237 

Extreme  views  were  not  confined  to  the  South,  although 
more  widely  prevalent  there.  The  small  circle  of  non-voting 
Abolitionists  were  more  active  than  ever  in  propagating  their 
opinions.  To  Governor  Gardner's  recommendation  that  the 
personal  liberty  statute  be  either  repealed  or  modified,  the 
Liberator  entered  a  vigorous  protest.  The  law  went  as  far, 
perhaps,  as  Massachusetts  could  go  while  she  remained  a  mem 
ber  of  the  Union.  But,  added  the  Liberator,  "she  never  ought 
to  allow  a  human  being,  claimed  as  the  property  of  another,  to 
be  put  on  trial  at  all.  Therefore,  that  she  may  no  longer  be 
bound  in  any  manner  by  this  'covenant  with  death  and  agree 
ment  with  hell,'  we  reiterate  our  battle-cry — 'No  Union  with 
slaveholders.'  '  Massachusetts,  said  Wendell  Phillips,  was 
the  brain  of  the  Union  and  furnished  it  with  ideas.  During 
the  twenty-five  years  of  conflict  the  greatest  service  rendered 
to  freedom  was  the  unmasking  of  the  bastard  republic.  "We 
have  brought  truth  to  reveal  the  riot  that  was  all  about  us."  2 

A  disunion  convention  was  called  to  meet  at  Cleveland, 
October  28th,  and  although  postponed  by  the  advice  of  wise 
counsellors,  the  fact  that  such  a  convention  was  called  in  the 
North  caused  alarm. 

George  Ticknor  declared  that  he  had  not  witnessed  so  bad  a 
state  of  things  for  forty  years.  Everything  was  in  the  hands 
of  the  disunionists  of  the  Atlantic  States  at  the  two  ends  of 
the  Union,  each  faction  seeking  by  its  violence  to  bring  about 
a  separation  of  the  States.3 

The  South  is  very  desperate.  Its  people  feel  every  year,  more  and 
more,  how  they  are  wasting  away  under  the  blighting  curse  of 

States  should  understand  each  other  at  once." — Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers, 
vol.  ii.,  p.  532. 

The  rushing  tide  was  to  fetch  in  more  than  independence.  A  writer  in  DeBo-w's 
Review  for  August  argued  strongly  in  favor  of  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  for  the 
express  purpose  of  reopening  the  African  slave  trade. 

1  Liberator,  Jan.  II,  1856.  *  Liberator,  Jan.  9,  1857. 

3  "  Our  Southern  politicians  are  not  up  to  our  Southern  people  in  distrust  and 
dislike  of  the  North.  The  feeling  is  bitter  and  impulsive  in  the  popular  mind, 
and  many  bad  men  are  slyly  hurrying  on  the  collision." — Letter  of  Henry  A. 
Wise,  Aug.  15,  1856.  Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers,  vol,  ii.,  p.  531. 


238  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

slavery,  and  struggle  like  drowning  men  to  recover  some  foothold 
on  solid  ground.  The  North,  justly  outraged  by  the  assault  on 
Sumner,  and  by  much  that  has  happened  in  Kansas,  loses,  for  a 
time,  both  patience  and  wisdom,  so  that  I  hear  "fighting  the 
South  "  constantly  talked  of  as  a  thing  not  to  be  deprecated.1 

The  majority  of  the  people,  however,  he  believed  to  be  still 
sound  on  the  great  question,  and  he  looked  to  the  West,  where 
the  tension  was  less,  to  save  the  Atlantic  States  from  the  mad 
ness  of  civil  war. 

Conservative  men  engaged  in  business,  and  especially  those 
of  Whig  antecedents,  were  becoming  alarmed  and  were  con 
sulting  as  to  the  means  to  employ  to  stay  the  rising  tide  of 
sectionalism.  W.  C.  Rives  of  Virginia  thought  that  law-and- 
order  meetings  ought  to  be  held,  and  an  appeal  made  to  the 
virtuous  and  intelligent  masses  of  the  people  ;  that  the  govern 
ment  ought  to  be  called  upon  to  exert  all  its  constitutional 
powers,  "whether  legislative,  executive  or  judicial,  to  repress 
civil  war,  not  merely  in  its  overt  acts,  but  in  its  incipient  and 
preparatory  movements."  2 

The  chief  object  of  the  Constitution  was  to  establish  a  more 
perfect  union,  to  produce  concord  and  community  of  feeling 
among  the  States  and  to  combine  their  energies  for  great 
national  purposes.  Alienation  would  defeat  this  grand  object 
and  lead  eventually  to  forcible  rupture.  A  great  stride  would 
be  made  towards  moral  disunion  if  the  stronger  section  should 
triumph  over  the  weaker.3  A  government  thus  established 
would  appear  to  fifteen  States  an  alien  government ;  nay, 
worse,  it  would  appear  a  hostile  government. 

It  would  represent  to  their  eyes  a  vast  region  of  States,  organized 
upon  anti-slavery,  flushed  by  triumph,  cheered  onward  by  the  voices 
of  the  pulpit,  tribune  and  press;  its  mission  to  inaugurate  freedom 

1  Life,  vol.  ii.,  p.  297. 

2  National  Intelligencer,  June  2O,   1856.     Letter  dated  Castle   Hill,  Va.,  June 
10th,  and  addressed  to  Hon.  Rob't  C.  Winthrop. 

3  Speech    of   Washington    Hunt   from  the  steps  of  the  New  York  Exchange 
building,  Oct.  10,  1856. 


Threats  of  Secession  239 

and  put  down  the  oligarchy;  its  constitution  the  glittering  and 
sounding  generalities  of  natural  rights  which  make  up  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence.  And  then  and  thus  is  the  beginning  of  the 
end.1 

Therefore  was  it  not  the  duty  of  all  patriotic  men  to  strike  at 
this  portentous  party,  to  defeat  and  dissolve  it?  This  view 
carried  Rufus  Choate  and  other  old  Whigs  of  New  England 
and  James  B.  Clay  and  other  Kentuckians  into  the  Democratic 
party,  as  the  contest  was  clearly  between  Fremont  and  Bu 
chanan,  and  they  believed  that  the  latter  only  represented  the 
sentiment  of  nationality, — tolerant,  warm  and  comprehensive, 
— without  which  America  were  no  longer  America.  What  if 
events  proved  that  they  did  not  comprehend  the  nature  of  the 
disease,  and  that  they  mistook  the  remedy,  shall  not  their 
motive  be  respected? 

And  after  all  the  very  marrow  of  the  political  controversy 
was  expressed  by  the  highest  Southern  authority  when  it  de 
clared  that  aggressive  action  by  the  South  was  limited  to  a 
struggle  on  her  part  "to  preserve  an  equality  with  the  North 
in  a  single  branch  of  Congress,  while  she  was  hopelessly  in 
ferior  in  the  other."  2 

The  management  of  the  canvass  was  able  and  freer  from 
personal  abuse  than  usual.  The  Republicans  were  at  a  disad 
vantage  in  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey,  where  several  anti- 
Nebraska  speakers  of  prominence,  on  assurance  given  by  Mr. 
Buchanan  that  if  elected  he  would  see  that  the  people  of  Kan 
sas  had  fair  play,  were  canvassing  for  the  Democratic  ticket.3 
They  could  get  up  no  such  enthusiasm  as  swept  over  the  other 
Northern  States.  The  Democratic  committees  were  liberally 
supplied  with  money.  They  could  not  prevent  a  fusion  of  op 
posing  parties  in  Pennsylvania  on  a  State  ticket,  but  they  suc 
ceeded  better  in  New  Jersey.  They  induced  a  few  Whigs  to 
put  up  a  second  presidential  ticket — Commodore  Stockton  and 
Kenneth  Rayner  being  the  candidates — and  this  was  worked  in 

1  Letter  of  Rufus  Choate  to  E.  W.  Farley,  et  al.     Pamphlet,  pp.  1-8. 

2  Charleston  Mercury,  Feb.,  1856. 

8  Anecdotes  of  Public  Men,  by  John  W.  Forney,  vol.  ii.,  p.  239. 


240  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

the  interest  of  Mr.  Buchanan.1  In  Ohio  it  was  developed  that 
the  Democratic  managers  were  paying  to  keep  the  Fillmore 
electoral  ticket  and  American  county  tickets  in  the  field.2  Until 
the  October  States  voted  it  was  confidently  expected  that 
Fremont  would  carry  every  free  State  except  California  and 
New  Jersey.  In  Pennsylvania  the  Democrats  had  only  a  nar 
row  margin  of  three  thousand  votes,  but  as  they  had  carried 
Indiana  also,  the  drift  was  unmistakable. 

Buchanan  escaped  defeat  only  by  the  exertions  of  the  men 
who  accepted  his  promise  that  he  would  settle  the  conflict  in 
Kansas  by  protecting  the  free-State  immigrants.  The  size  of 
the  vote  cast  by  the  recently  organized  party  3  notified  all  that 
it  was  a  permanent  and  aggressive  force.  The  significance  of 
this  was  comprehended  by  leaders  of  Southern  sentiment. 
"The  Northern  people  in  this  election,"  said  the  Charleston 
Mercury,  "have  declared  themselves  a  distinct  people,  with 
principles  and  purposes  essentially  and  permanently  at  war 
with  our  safety  and  equality  in  the  Union."  And  the  advice 
was  given  to  form  combinations  and  shape  events  so  as  to 
bring  about  as  speedily  as  possible  a  dissolution  of  the  federal 
Union  and  the  establishment  of  a  Southern  confederacy.4 
The  four  years  of  Buchanan's  administration  were  employed 
for  this  purpose.  The  President  opened  the  way  December  3d, 
in  a  message  which  was  a  malignant  diatribe,  falsifying  politi 
cal  history  as  a  basis  of  a  libel  upon  one  half  of  the  people  of 
the  country.5  This  was  encouragement  for  what  was  to  follow. 

1  "  My  friend  Stockton  so  plays  his   cards  in  New  Jersey  as  to  prevent  any 
fusion,  and  thereby  insures  the  plurality  vote   to  Buchanan." — Letters  of  John 
Tyler,  vol.  ii.,  p.  534. 

2  Cincinnati  Gazette,  Oct.  gth. 

3  The  popular  vote  was  :  Buchanan,  1,838,169;  Fremont,  1,341,264;  Fillmore, 
874,534.     Buchanan  lacked  nearly  400,000  votes  of  a  majority.     The   electoral 
vote  was  :  Buchanan,  174;  Fremont,   114;  Fillmore,  8.     Maryland  cast  her  vote 
for  Fillmore.     The  rest  of  the  Southern  States,   and  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey, 
Indiana,  Illinois  and  California  voted  for  Buchanan. 

4  The  reference  is  to  remarks  made  by  ex-Senator  Rhett. 

5  Senator  Collamer,  whose  masterly  review  of  political  history  in  reply  to  the 
President  holds  the  first  place  for  matter  and  manner  in  the  debates  of  the  Thirty- 
fourth  Congress,  regarded  the  message  as  "  the  ebullition  of  an  impotent  sort  of 


The  Election  of  Buchanan  241 

The  indifference  of  the  President  to  the  tyranny  exercised 
by  subordinate  officials,  creatures  of  the  bogus  Legislature  of 
Kansas,  over  the  lives  and  property  of  people  emigrating  from 
the  free  States  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  features  of  this 
conflict.  The  Governor  of  Ohio  laid  before  the  General  As 
sembly  of  that  State  letters  and  affidavits  received  from 
Kansas  showing  the  unhappy  condition  of  several  hundred 
worthy  people  who  had  left  Ohio  to  find  new  homes.  Many 
of  their  number  had  been  killed,  many  robbed,  and  all  had 
been  subjected  to  grievous  indignities  and  injuries.  They  had 
appealed  in  vain  to  the  federal  government  for  protection. 
Governor  Chase  sent  money,  contributed  by  private  benefi 
cence,  for  their  immediate  relief,  and  recommended  State  aid. 

These  representations  [added  he]  cannot  be  properly  disregarded. 
As  an  equal  member  of  the  confederacy,  Ohio  is  entitled  to  demand 
for  her  citizens  emigrating  to  the  territories,  free  ingress  and  egress 
by  the  ordinary  routes,  and  complete  protection  from  invasion,  from 
usurpation  and  from  lawlesss  violence.  If  the  general  government 
refuse  this  protection,  /  cannot  doubt  the  right  or  the  duty  of  the  State 
to  intervene. 1 

rage  on  the  part  of  a  disappointed,  ambitious  man  .  .  .  worthy  of  no  particular 
notice,  except  that  it  was  endorsed  by  the  authority  of  the  highest  executive 
of  the  government." — App.,  Cong.  Globe,  Dec.,  1856,  p.  49. 

The  legal  argument  of  Judge  Trumbull  was  also  notable. — Cong.  Globe,  3d 
Session. 

Senator  Pugh  made  an  ingenious  and  elaborate  reply  to  Trumbull  and  Collamer 
in  defence  of  the  President. — App.,  Cong.  Globe,  p.  57. 

1  Message  of  Governor  Chase,  Jan,  5,  1857. 

VOL.  1.— 16. 


CHAPTER   IX 

THE    DRED    SCOTT   DECISION — THE    ADMINISTRATION    AND 
KANSAS  —  JOHN   BROWN'S    RAID 

THE  benevolent  tone  pervading  the  inaugural  of  the  new 
President  was  the  expression  of  an  honest  wish  for  a 
cessation  of  political  strife  and  the  restoration  of  cordial 
good-will  between  the  sections.  But  when  the  chosen  of  the 
people  comes  to  government  with  right  disposition,  he  should 
be  armed  with  firmness,  and  resolve  with  courage  to  hold  his 
course  uninfluenced  by  faction.  Standing  for  the  whole  peo 
ple,  with  an  eye  single  to  righteous  judgments,  he  should  dis 
tinguish  between  honest  differences  resulting  from  a  conflict 
of  ideas,  and  the  heats  of  party  passion  driving  to  a  selfish  or 
corrupt  goal,  regardless  of  consequences.  Unfortunately  Mr. 
Buchanan  was  devoid  of  the  great  qualities  of  leadership.  His 
soul  was  plastic,  his  disposition  to  trim  and  to  gratify  those 
who  possessed  his  confidence.  One  cannot  imagine  him  pur 
suing  any  course  with  "matchless  fortitude." 

The  substitution  of  squatter  sovereignty  in  place  of  national 
sovereignty  served  as  an  experimentum  luciferum  in  disclosing 
the  exact  nature  of  the  sectional  antagonisms  and  of  the  mo 
tives  of  men  engaged  in  the  game  of  politics.  In  political 
society  there  is  no  constant  law  of  sequence  as  in  the  physical 
world,  but  changes  result  from  manifold  influences  whose  re 
lations  to  one  another  are  difficult  to  determine.  This  is  be 
cause  the  truth  does  not  lie  upon  the  surface.  The  fair  face 
of  the  deed  is  no  certain  indication  of  the  motive  within.  The 
poets  of  antiquity  ascribe  the  cause  of  the  Trojan  war  to  the 

242 


Buchanan's  Inaugural  Address  243 

injury  done  to  Menelaus  by  Paris,  in  the  abduction  of  Helen. 
The  imagination  is  fired  by  the  romantic  incident,  and  passes 
by  the  only  adequate  explanation  derivable  from  the  wealth 
and  power  and  ambition  of  Agamemnon.  If  good  people  were 
misled  by  the  plausible  reasons  assigned  for  the  abrogation  of 
a  contract,  that  this  abrogation  extended  the  principle  of  self- 
government  to  the  territories  where  the  majority  should  rule 
as  they  ruled  in  the  States,  and  that  it  banished  the  agitation 
of  the  question  of  domestic  slavery  from  the  halls  of  Congress 
forever  and  confined  it  within  narrow  limits, — if  they  accepted 
for  a  time  as  sincere  these  specious  reasons,  they  were  soon 
undeceived.  The  crimes  committed  with  the  consent,  if  not 
by  the  procurement,  of  the  administration,  developing  into 
civil  war,  revealed,  as  surely  as  in  the  case  of  Agamemnon,  the 
real  motives  of  the  authors,  fired  by  ambition  for  the  possession 
and  augmentation  of  power. 

Had  Mr.  Buchanan  failed  to  comprehend  the  Kansas  com 
plications  ?  Did  not  the  removal  of  Governor  after  Governor, 
each  appointed  for  his  faithful  party  record,  suggest  the  para 
mount  influence  of  evil  machinations  against  the  peace  of  the 
people  of  Kansas?  In  explanation  it  may  be  said  that  at  the 
time  of  his  inauguration  there  was  a  fair  promise  of  peace. 
The  latest  of  the  Governors — his  friend,  John  W.  Geary — dur 
ing  the  progress  of  the  presidential  canvass,  had  succeeded  in 
reassuring  the  settlers  that  after  all  they  would  receive  protec 
tion.  Governor  Robinson  and  other  free-State  prisoners  who 
had  been  seized  and  confined  for  months  on  a  charge  of  con 
structive  treason  devised  by  Judge  Lecompte  were  discharged 
and  remained  unmolested.  But  Geary  himself  resigned  an 
office  in  which  he  could  not  remain  without  sacrificing  his 
manhood  and  all  sense  of  justice. 

Had  Mr.  Buchanan  shifted  his  position?  It  is  certain  that 
the  language  used  in  his  inaugural  was  a  surprise  to  Mr.  Doug 
las  and  others.  He  said  that  a  difference  of  opinion  had  arisen 
in  regard  to  the  point  of  time  when  the  people  of  a  territory 
should  decide  the  character  of  their  institutions  for  themselves ; 
though  it  had  ever  been  his  opinion  that,  under  the  Kansas- 


244  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Nebraska  act,  the  appropriate  period  would  be  when  the  num 
ber  of  actual  residents  in  the  territory  should  justify  the 
formation  of  a  constitution  with  a  view  to  its  admission  as  a 
State  into  the  Union.  Here  he  accepted  the  view  held  by  the 
Southern  wing  of  the  Democratic  party,  as  had  been  his  in 
variable  practice  in  his  long  political  career.  During  the  can 
vass,  however,  he  had  written  a  letter  which  favored  Douglas's 
squatter-sovereignty  theory,  for  which  he  had  been  promptly 
rebuked  by  Governor  Wise  of  Virginia.1  The  Democrats  of 
that  commonwealth  and  of  the  other  commonwealths  in  the 
league  to  make  slavery  national  or  to  form  a  Southern  confed 
eracy,  repudiated  the  idea  that  the  people  of  a  territory  could 
make  what  laws  they  pleased — if  such  laws  excluded  slave 
property.  This  difference  split  the  Democratic  party  in  twain. 
Douglas  had,  even  as  Jason  seeking  the  golden  fleece,  repeated 
the  act  of  Cadmus,  and,  despite  his  strenuous  and  patriotic 
efforts  later,  from  the  ground  where  the  dragon's  teeth  had 
been  sowed  armed  men  sprang  up  and  fell  foul  of  one  another. 

Mr.  Buchanan's  inaugural  revealed  the  further  fact,  that  the 
Supreme  Court  had  undertaken  to  determine  the  question 
when  a  people  might  fix  the  status  of  their  institutions — had 
undertaken,  as  the  sequel  showed,  to  throttle  squatter  sov 
ereignty.  This  was  the  final  stroke  in  that  policy  which  sprang 
from  the  brain  of  Calhoun, — the  last  play  as  it  proved  within 
the  federal  Union.  The  legislative  and  executive  branches  of 
government  had  been  brought  to  the  support  of  the  political 
theories  of  the  South,  and  now,  at  last,  the  judicial.  A 
decision  by  the  court  of  last  resort  would  permanently  weld 
the  bonds.  That  even  this  failed  to  accomplish  what  had  con 
fidently  been  expected,  but  served  rather  to  increase  the  dissen 
sions,  was  due  to  the  character  of  the  decision,  and  not  to  a 
lessening  of  respect  for  law,  or  to  shaken  confidence  in  the 
wisdom  of  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  which  established 
the  Supreme  Court. 

Two  days  after  the  inauguration  the  decision  foreshadowed 

1  Henry   A.    Wise  to  Robert  Tyler,  July  6,    1856.—  Letters  and  Times  of  the 
Tylers,  vol.  ii.,  p.  530. 


The  Dred  Scott  Decision  245 

by  Mr.  Buchanan  was  pronounced.  Party  feeling  carried  po 
litical  leaders  and  writers  so  far  as  to  move  them  to  asperse  the 
President  and  the  court  on  the  assumption  that  he  had  been 
privately  advised  of  the  character  of  the  decision  in  advance  of 
its  delivery.1  The  cruel  injustice  of  this  criticism  is  established 
by  facts  now  accessible.  While  these  make  it  improbable  that 
there  was  any  improper  confidence  between  the  President-elect 
and  the  court,  they  leave  some  member  or  members  open  to 
the  charge  of  having  communicated  to  an  outsider  the  attitude 
of  the  court  months  in  advance  of  the  delivery  of  the  decision, 
and  of  having  withheld  the  decision  in  order  not  to  jeopardize 
the  election  of  Mr.  Buchanan.  The  private  correspondence 
of  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  since  published,  reveals  the  in 
fluences  at  work  in  those  years  to  secure  a  pronouncement 
from  the  Supreme  Court  favorable  to  the  new  Southern 
dogma.  December  15,  1856,  he  writes: 

I  have  been  urging  all  the  influence  I  could  bring  to  bear  upon 
the  Supreme  Court  to  get  them  to  postpone  no  longer  the  case  on 
the  Missouri  restriction  before  them,  but  to  decide  it.  If  they  de 
cide,  as  I  have  reason  to  believe  they  will,  that  the  restriction  was 
unconstitutional,  then  the  question — the  political  question, — as  I 
think,  will  be  ended,  as  to  the  power  of  the  people  in  their  terri 
torial  Legislatures.  It  will  be,  in  effect,  a  res  adjudhata. 

On  the  following  New  Year's  day,  referring  to  the  hearings 
in  the  Dred  Scott  case  before  the  Court,  he  says  further : 

The  decision  will  be  a  marked  epoch  in  our  history.  I  feel  a 
deep  solicitude  as  to  how  it  will  be.  From  what  I  hear,  sub  rosa,  it 
will  be  according  to  my  own  opinion  on  every  point,  as  abstract 
political  questions.  The  restriction  of  1820  will  be  held  to  be  un 
constitutional.  The  judges  are  all  writing  out  their  opinions,  I  be 
lieve,  seriatim.  The  Chief  Justice  will  give  an  elaborate  one. 
Should  this  opinion  be,  as  I  suppose  it  will,  squatter  sovereignty 
speeches  will  be  on  a  par  with  liberty  speeches  at  the  North  in  the 
last  canvass.3 

1  See  New  York    Tribune  and  other  papers  of  the  day,   and  speech  by  W.  H. 
Seward,  March  3,  1858. 

2  Johnston  and  Browne's  Life  of  Alex.  H.  Stephens,  pp.  316-318. 


246  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

The  decision  in  the  Dred  Scott  case  was  truly  a  marked 
epoch  in  our  history,  from  which  we  reach  the  inevitable  con 
clusion  that  all  of  the  triumphs  of  the  aggressive  South  were 

Like  to  the  apples  on  the  Dead  Sea's  shore, 
All  ashes  to  the  taste. 

Dred  Scott  had  been  taken  by  his  master,  Dr.  Emerson,  an 
army  surgeon  living  in  Missouri,  to  the  military  post  at  Rock 
Island  and  afterward  to  Fort  Snelling,  then  in  that  part  of  the 
territory  of  Wisconsin  which  was  originally  a  part  of  the 
Louisiana  Territory,  and  had  married  there  with  the  consent 
of  his  master.  After  several  years  Dr.  Emerson  returned  to 
Missouri,  where  Scott  brought  suit  in  the  local  court  of  St. 
Louis  to  recover  the  freedom  of  himself  and  his  family.  The 
decision  of  the  court,  following  numerous  precedents,  was  in 
his  favor.  The  master  appealed  to  the  State  Supreme  Court, 
which  reversed  the  judgment  of  the  court  below.1  Later,  in 
1853,  on  being  sold  to  John  F.  A.  Sandford,  a  citizen  of  New 
York,  Scott  sued  for  freedom  in  the  United  States  Circuit 
Court.  The  decision  of  the  court  was  against  him,  and  the 
case  went  up  on  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court. 

It  was  decided  informally  to  limit  the  opinion  to  the  partic 
ular  circumstances  of  Dred  Scott,  which  would  have  been  in  a 
word  to  affirm  the  judgment  of  the  court  below.  But  in  an 
other  conference,  doubtless  upon  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Ste 
phens  referred  to  above,  Mr.  Justice  Wayne  proposed  that  the 
Chief  Justice  should  write  an  opinion  on  all  of  the  questions 
argued  before  the  court.2  The  justification  is  given  in  the  lan 
guage  of  Justice  Wayne:  "The  case  involves  private  rights  of 
value,  and  constitutional  principles  of  the  highest  importance, 
about  which  there  has  become  such  a  difference  of  opinion  that 
the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  country  required  the  settlement 
of  them  by  a  judicial  decision."  The  final  opinion  of  the 

1 15  Missouri  Reports. 

2  Letter  of  Judge  J.  A.  Campbell  to  Samuel  Tyler,  Nov.  24,  1870.     Memoir  of 
Roger  B.   Taney,  p,  384. 
3 19  Howard. 


The  Dred  Scott  Decision  247 

court  was,  that  Scott  being  of  African  descent  was  not  a 
citizen  of  Missouri  in  the  sense  in  which  that  word  is  used  in 
the  Constitution;  and  that  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United 
States,  for  that  reason,  had  no  jurisdiction  in  the  case,  and 
could  give  no  judgment  in  it.  Then  the  court  went  out  of  its 
way  to  get  at  the  political  questions  agitating  the  country, 
which  had  been  in  argument  before  the  court — an  exercise  of 
judicial  power,  said  Mr.  Justice  Curtis  in  his  dissenting  opinion, 
transcending  the  limits  of  the  authority  of  the  court,  "as  de 
scribed  by  its  repeated  decisions."  Thus  did  the  Chief  Justice 
reach  the  question,  whether  it  be  competent  for  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  exclude  slavery 
from  the  territories.  The  court  decided  that  it  could  not. 
And  thus  was  the  Missouri  Compromise  declared  invalid,  the 
reasons  being  that  one  of  the  constitutional  functions  of  Con 
gress  was  the  protection  of  property ;  that  slaves  had  been  rec 
ognized  as  property  by  the  Constitution,  and  that  Congress 
was  bound  to  protect,  not  to  prohibit,  slavery  in  the  terri 
tories.  Mr.  Calhoun's  view  had  finally  received  the  sanction 
of  the  Supreme  Court. 

The  dissenting  opinions  of  Justices  McLean  and  Curtis  were 
regarded  of  so  much  importance,  as  so  powerful  in  exposition 
of  the  political  history  of  the  United  States  and  of  consti 
tutional  principles  that  they  were  published  in  the  press  and 
in  pamphlet  form  and  widely  circulated.  Public  feeling  in  the 
Northern  States  at  once  declared  against  the  opinion  of  a 
court,  a  majority  of  whose  members  were  slaveholders,  and  be 
came  quite  as  intense  as  on  the  occasion  of  the  repeal  of  the 
Missouri  restriction.  Senator  Seward  and  other  party  leaders 
and  great  lawyers  like  Fessenden  were  almost  savage  in  their 
criticisms  of  Chief  Justice  Taney  and  his  associates,  while 
eloquent  panegyrics  rewarded  the  two  dissenting  Justices. 

I  am  entirely  satisfied  with  the  opinion  of  our  member  of  the 
court  [wrote  Rutherford  B.  Hayes  to  a  friend],  not  only  because  of 
its  strength  as  a  legal  argument,  but  because  it  is  in  harmony  with 
the  enlightened  sentiment  of  the  North  and  justifies  those  who 


248  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

vouched  for  the  soundness  of  Judge  McLean's  views  when  his 
name  was  used  in  connection  with  the  presidency.  The  opinion  of 
Justice  Curtis  takes  a  wider  range,  and  is,  perhaps,  more  forcible 
as  an  argument  and  more  graceful  in  diction.  Coming  from  a 
Whig,  from  a  lawyer  chosen  on  the  advice  of  Mr.  Webster  for  ap 
pointment  to  the  court,  the  weight  of  its  influence  in  the  present  con 
troversy  cannot  be  overestimated.  The  structure  reared  by  the  Chief 
Justice  with  infinite  pains  is  speedily  demolished  by  a  few  powerful 
blows  from  Curtis.  His  tone  at  times  is  almost  contemptuous. 

Justice  McLean  meets  the  specious  argument  of  the  court,  that 
the  latest  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Missouri  settles  the  law 
of  that  State,  and  that  it  is  the  Missouri  law  that  determines  the 
status  of  Dred  Scott  and  family,  with  clever  tact  by  quoting  the  lan 
guage  of  Justice  Grier  in  Pease  vs.  Peck:  "When  the  decisions  of 
the  State  court  are  not  consistent,  we  do  not  feel  bound  to  follow 
the  last,  if  it  is  contrary  to  our  own  convictions."  For  twenty- 
eight  years,  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Missouri  were 
consistent  on  all  of  the  points  made  in  this  case,  and  adjudged  the 
freedom  of  the  slave  on  being  carried  into  free  territory.  Scott  was 
legally  free  in  Illinois,  legally  free  at  Fort  Snelling,  which  was 
within  territory  that,  by  act  of  Congress,1  had  been  subjected  to  the 
provisions  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  and  for  a  dozen  years  after  his 
return  to  Missouri  under  the  uniform  decisions  of  the  courts  of  that 
State  was  entitled  to  his  freedom,  and  would  have  secured  it  if  he 
had  publicly  demanded  it.  Having  the  same  rights  of  sovereignty 
as  the  State  of  Missouri,  Judge  McLean  could  see  no  reason  why 
the  institutions  of  Illinois  should  not  receive  equal  consideration. 
Why  should  not  liberty  be  considered  in  any  hearing  of  the  case  as 
well  as  bondage  ?  Judge  McLean  has  fortified  every  position.  He 
gives  correctly  the  meaning  of  Congress  in  reviving  the  Ordinance 
of  1 787,"  and  certainly  interprets  the  opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Mar 
shall  in  the  Florida  case  to  the  approval  of  my  judgment.  Chief 
Justice  Taney's  mind  was  so  befogged  that  he  failed  to  grasp  the 

1  Act  including  Upper  Louisiana  within  the  territory  of  Wisconsin. 

2  The  preamble  to  the  act  of  1789  reviving  the  Ordinance,  is  the  key  to  unlock 
the  meaning  of  the  act. — Historical  and  Legal  Examination,  etc.,  by  Thomas  H. 
Benton.     This  book  of  193  pages  is  perhaps  the  most  effective,  and,  upon  the 
whole,  most  satisfactory  of  the  reviews  of  the  opinion  of  the  court  as  pronounced 
by  Chief  Justice  Taney. 


Buchanan  and  Kansas  249 

full  force  of  the  language  of  his  great  predecessor,  which  in  effect 
was  that  the  power  in  Congress  was  unquestioned.  The  right  of 
government  was  the  right  of  sovereignty.  Hence  in  legislating  for 
the  territories  "Congress  exercises  the  combined  powers  of  the 
general  and  State  governments."  The  court  in  the  case  of  Dred 
Scott  limited  the  scope  of  the  word  citizen  by  a  number  of  infer 
ences.  Justice  Curtis  restores  it  to  its  full  meaning  by  citing  his 
torical  facts.  The  force  of  these  is  irresistible. 

The  Northern  people  regarded  the  political  points  in  the  de 
cision  of  the  court  as  obiter  dicta,  and  as  having  no  claim  on 
their  acquiescence.  They  not  only  did  not  acquiesce,  but  they 
became  assailants  in  the  political  warfare  that  continued  with 
great  fury,  and  they  were  carried  by  their  feelings  to  unjusti 
fiable  lengths. 

The  first  important  duty  that  confronted  Mr.  Buchanan  was 
to  provide  a  successor  to  Governor  Geary.  He  determined  on 
a  new  policy,  v/hich  was  auspiciously  begun  by  removing  Sec 
retary  Woodson.  The  character  and  experience  of  the  men 
selected  for  Governor  and  Secretary  confirmed  the  impression 
that  had  gone  abroad  that  the  President  had  determined  to 
bring  about  a  permanent  peace.  Robert  J.  Walker  of  Missis 
sippi,  who  had  served  creditably  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
and  who  won  distinction  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  was 
prevailed  on  to  accept  the  office  of  Governor.  He  did  so  on 
condition  that  General  Harney  should  be  stationed  in  the  ter 
ritory  with  an  ample  military  force,  and  that  his  policy  should 
be  the  submission  of  the  constitution  to  be  formed  by  a  future 
convention  which  the  bogus  territorial  Legislature  had  pro 
vided  for,  to  a  vote  of  the  bona-fide  inhabitants.  Frederick  P. 
Stanton  of  Tennessee,  who  had  served  ten  years  in  Congress, 
and  was  gifted  with  courage  and  a  high  sense  of  honor,  was 
made  Secretary.  These  Southern  men  shared  in  the  opinion 
prevalent  in  their  section,  that  the  free-State  settlers  were 
turbulent  and  inimical  to  a  settled  order  of  society,  and  they 
entered  upon  the  duties  of  their  office  with  this  feeling  of 
prejudice,  which,  however,  was  speedily  dissipated  when  they 
ascertained  the  true  condition  of  affairs. 


250  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Governor  Walker  submitted  the  draft  of  his  inaugural  to  the 
President  and  to  Senator  Douglas,  and  it  was  approved  by 
both.  In  it  he  made  the  explicit  declaration  that,  unless  the 
convention  submitted  the  constitution  to  the  vote  of  the  ac 
tual  resident  settlers,  at  an  election  fairly  and  justly  conduc 
ted,  the  constitution  would  be  and  ought  to  be  rejected  by 
Congress.  The  Governor  endeavored  to  persuade  the  free- 
State  party  to  vote  for  delegates  to  the  constitutional  conven 
tion,  promising  his  protection,  but  they  were  not  ready  to 
yield  their  policy  of  non-conformity.  What  the  Governor  suc 
ceeded  in  accomplishing  was  the  defeat  of  the  radical  purpose 
to  put  the  Topeka  plan  in  operation,  and  in  establishing  cor 
dial  relations  with  the  moderate  free-State  members  of  the 
community.  As  Kansas  could  not  be  made  a  slave  State,  he 
hoped  to  secure  its  admission  to  the  Union  as  a  Democratic 
State.  No  attempt  was  made  by  the  officers  charged  with  that 
duty  to  obtain  the  census  or  registration  in  several  of  the  in 
terior  counties,  an  omission  that  could  not  be  corrected  by  the 
secretary,  and  yet  9250  votes  were  registered.  The  free-State 
settlers  refraining  from  voting,  the  result  of  the  balloting 
showed  that  only  about  one-fourth  of  the  whole  number  of 
registered  voters  represented  the  pro-slavery  interest.  But  the 
election  was  peaceable  and  in  conformity  to  the  law.  The 
constitutional  convention  met  in  September,  organized  and 
then  adjourned  to  October  iQth,  to  await  the  election  of  a 
territorial  Legislature  and  delegate  to  Congress,  authorized  to 
take  place  October  5th. 

The  free-State  men  wisely  concluded  to  change  their  policy 
and  to  participate  in  this  election.  They  had  been  urged  to  do 
this  by  Governor  Chase  and  other  Republican  leaders  in  Ohio, 
New  York  and  New  England,  as  well  as  by  Governor  Walker. 
The  Governor  stationed  troops  at  several  different  points  to 
prevent  any  interference  with  the  balloting  by  outsiders,  with 
the  happiest  results.  For  the  first  time  there  was  a  fair  trial 
of  strength.  The  free-State  men  elected  a  majority  of  both 
branches  of  the  Legislature,  and  a  delegate  to  Congress  by  a 
majority  of  4089  votes.  The  poll  stood:  Parrott,  the  free- 


Buchanan  and  Kansas  251 

State  candidate,  7888  votes,  and  Ransom,  the  Democratic  can 
didate,  3799  votes.  The  defeated  party,  however,  unwilling 
that  the  new  State  officers  should  be  without  the  means  of  re 
versing  the  popular  verdict,  provided  a  poll-book  from  the  no 
torious  precinct  of  Oxford  containing  what  purported  to  be  a 
return  of  1628  votes;  and  also  a  return  of  1200  from  McGee 
County.  These  returns  if  counted  would  change  the  political 
complexion  of  the  Legislature.  The  Governor  and  Secretary 
rejected  these  fraudulent  returns  and  gave  certificates  to  the 
free-State  candidates  as  shown  to  be  elected  by  the  regular 
returns.  In  a  proclamation  they  said  : 

The  consideration  that  our  own  party  by  this  decision  will  lose 
the  majority  in  the  legislative  assembly  does  not  make  our  duty  in 
the  premises  less  solemn  and  imperative.  The  elective  franchise 
would  be  utterly  valueless  and  free  government  itself  would  receive 
a  deadly  blow,  if  so  great  an  outrage  as  this  could  be  shielded  under 
the  cover  of  mere  forms  and  technicalities. 

This  honest  and  fearless  discharge  of  duty  ought  to  have  been 
an  inspiration  to  the  whole  country.  It  was  commended  in 
the  Northern  States,  but  it  caused  a  feeling  of  constraint  in 
official  circles  at  Washington,  and  fed  the  flame  of  censorious 
criticism  which  had  burst  forth  as  soon  as  Governor  Walker's 
fair  intentions  were  made  public. 

The  convention  on  reassembling  proceeded  to  form  a  consti 
tution  adapted  to  a  condition  of  slavery,  but  failed  to  submit 
it  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  The  slavery  question  was  to  be 
submitted  to  a  qualified  vote  December  2ist.  By  a  cunning 
device  every  vote  for  or  against  slavery  would  be  counted  as  a 
vote  for  the  constitution.  "It  makes  me  think  of  a  man," 
said  Senator  Wade,  "who  built  a  hog-pen  up  in  our  country 
once,  and  the  rails  were  so  crooked  and  winding,  that  when 
his  hogs  got  through  and  thought  they  had  got  out,  as  they 
wound  along  they  came  right  in  again."  '  If  the  people  said 
"constitution  with  slavery,"  that  gave  them  slavery  without 

1  Plain  Truths  for  the  People,  speech  of  Senator  B.  F.  Wade,  March  13  and 
15,  1858.  Pamphlet,  pp.  1-16. 


252  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

limitation — it  never  could  be  done  away  with.  If  they  voted 
"constitution  without  slavery,"  an  unsophisticated  man  might 
suppose  he  had  got  out  of  the  pen,  but  the  fact  was  it  twisted 
him  right  in  where  he  was  before. 

The  President  thought  the  plan  just  and  reasonable  as  in 
either  event  the  rights  of  property  in  slaves  were  preserved. 
But  the  wit  of  Senator  Wade  showed  the  Lecompton  scheme 
in  its  genuine  light.  It  provided  a  qualification  that  con 
trolled  the  vote  if  cast,  or  secured  its  rejection  if  the  citizen 
was  an  honest,  conscientious  man.  For  the  first  time  in  the 
history  of  this  country,  or  of  any  country,  a  test  oath — an  oath 
to  support  the  fugitive  slave  act — was  instituted  as  a  pre 
requisite  to  the  right  to  vote.  And  yet  because  the  conscien 
tious  citizens  of  Kansas  would  not  stultify  themselves  they  fell 
under  condemnation  of  the  President.  He  never  had  any 
qualms  of  conscience  where  slavery  was  concerned.  The  quali 
fication  was  a  most  palpable  violation  of  republican  principles, 
and  the  refusal  to  submit  the  whole  constitution  to  a  vote  was 
a  violation  of  the  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty  and  of  the 
pledges  of  the  Democratic  party  to  secure  to  the  people  of  the 
territory  the  privilege  of  self-government  in  its  broadest  sense.1 

When  the  one-sided  returns  were  received,  John  Calhoun, 
the  president  of  the  convention,  announced  the  adoption  of  the 
constitution,  and  transmitted  a  copy  to  the  President.  Mean 
while  the  people  besought  Secretary  Stanton,  acting  Governor 
during  the  absence  of  Governor  Walker,  to  convoke  the  Legis 
lature  in  special  session  in  order  that  steps  might  be  taken  to 
protect  them  against  the  Lecompton  constitution.  Mr.  Stan- 
ton  complied,  but  the  just  act  cost  him  his  office.  He  was 
promptly  removed  by  the  President  at  the  instigation  of  the 
minority.  When  the  Legislature  convened,  provision  was  made 
to  submit  the  whole  of  the  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people 
January  4,  1858,  the  day  appointed  for  the  election  of  State 
officers  and  a  State  Legislature.  At  this  election  the  pro- 
slavery  party  abstained  from  voting  on  the  constitution,  but 

1  Speech  of  Senator  Douglas,  Dec.  8,  1857,  on  the  President's  message.  Life, 
pp.  3H-324. 


Lecompton  Constitution  Rejected         253 

voted  for  State  officers.  The  constitution  was  rejected  by  a 
vote  of  10,226  to  162. 

This  overwhelming  repudiation  made  a  profound  impression 
on  the  country  and  on  Congress.  But  Mr.  Buchanan  came  up 
smiling  to  the  support  of  the  rejected  instrument.  On  the  2d 
of  February  he  transmitted  the  Lecompton  constitution  to  the 
Senate,  with  a  recommendation  that  Kansas  be  admitted  under 
it.  The  accompanying  message  was  an  elaborate  defence  of 
the  wrongs  by  which  under  the  forms  of  law  the  majority  of 
the  citizens  of  Kansas  had  been  deprived  of  their  rights,  treat 
ing  them  as  in  rebellion  against  lawful  authority.  He  declared 
with  great  satisfaction  that  the  sectional  difference  had  been 
settled  by  the  decision  in  the  Dred  Scott  case — that  "it  has 
been  solemnly  adjudged  by  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  known 
to  our  laws  that  slavery  exists  in  Kansas  by  virtue  of  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States" — that  "Kansas  is  at  this 
moment  as  much  a  slave  State  as  Georgia  or  South  Carolina." 

This  action  of  the  President  precipitated  an  extraordinary 
debate  in  which  the  leading  men  of  both  branches  of  Congress 
participated ;  and  which  again  roused  the  people  of  the  North 
to  protest  against  the  consummation  of  a  wrong,  with  such 
effect  as  to  render  it  impossible  for  the  administration  to  secure 
a  majority  for  the  Lecompton  constitution  in  the  House.  The 
bill  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Territories  by  Senator 
Green  to  admit  Kansas  under  the  Lecompton  constitution 
passed  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  33  to  25 — Bell  and  Crittenden, 
Americans,  and  Broderick,  Douglas,  Pugh  and  Stuart,  Demo 
crats,  voting  with  the  Republicans  in  the  negative.  During 
the  debate  Mr.  Crittenden,  who  had  opposed  the  Lecompton 
measure,  introduced  a  new  bill  to  provide  for  a  resubmission 
of  the  consitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  and,  in  case  of  its 
rejection,  for  the  election  of  delegates  to  a  new  convention  to 
form  another  constitution,  which  he  supported  in  a  speech  of 
great  power.  It  was  voted  down  by  the  administration  ma 
jority.  When  the  debate  opened  in  the  House  this  proposition 
was  introduced  as  a  substitute  to  the  Senate  bill  with  slight 
modifications  by  Mr.  Montgomery,  and  was  passed  by  a  vote 


254  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

of  1 20  to  112 — twenty  Democrats  (henceforth  this  class  were 
called  Douglas  Democrats)  and  six  "South"  Americans  join 
ing  with  the  Republicans  in  the  affirmative.  Each  House  ad 
hering,  the  bills  went  to  a  conference  committee  from  which 
was  evolved  what  was  known  as  "The  English  Bill,"  '  which 
submitted  the  entire  Lecompton  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the 
people.  If  adopted,  the  constitution  carried  with  it  a  large 
land  grant  to  the  new  State.  If  the  people  rejected  the  swin 
dle,  they  were  to  continue  in  the  territorial  condition  until 
their  numbers  increased  to  a  Representative  ratio.  The  people 
of  Kansas  spurned  the  bribe,  and  rejected  the  Lecompton  con 
stitution  by  a  vote  of  11,300  to  1788,  which  came  no  more  to 
plague  them.  Like  the  ghost  of  Banquo,  however,  it  inter 
rupted  every  Democratic  feast  and  created  a  fatal  feud  within 
the  party.  Mr.  Buchanan  had  become  panic-stricken  at  the 
opposition  to  his  administration  developed  in  Georgia  and 
Mississippi,  fell  under  the  influence  of  the  secession  members 
of  his  Cabinet,2  and  took  the  fatal  course  which  wrecked  the 
party. 

A  melancholy  interest  attaches  to  this  most  memorable  con 
test  because  of  the  fatal  sequel  involving  Senator  Broderick, 
who,  with  Senator  Douglas,  shared  the  plaudits  of  the  Northern 
Democrats  on  account  of  the  defeat  of  the  President,  whose 
administration  henceforth  was  chiefly  dependent  on  the 
Southern  faction.  David  C.  Broderick  was  a  native  of  Wash 
ington,  by  trade  a  mechanic,  who  had  become  a  citizen  of  Cali 
fornia  and  by  force  of  character  had  won  his  election  to  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States.  His  support  of  Douglas  in  the 
Lecompton  controversy  had  aroused  fierce  hostility  on  the  part 
of  the  administration  Democrats  in  California,  who  did  not 
hesitate  to  threaten  his  destruction.  He  felt  a  premonition  of 
his  fate,3  but  with  characteristic  courage  he  returned  to  Cali- 

1  Reported  by  W.  H.  English,  of  Indiana,  but  Alexander  H.  Stephens  was  the 
author.     Mr.  Stephens's  language  is  :   "  Whether  the  conference  bill  is  right  or 
wrong,  I  am  responsible  for  it." — Life,  p.  335. 

2  Casket  of  Reminiscences,  by  Henry  S.  Foote,  p.  116. 

3  Anecdotes  of  Public  Men,  vol.  i.,  p.  27.      "I  go  home  to  die,"  said  Broderick 
to  Forney.     "  I  shall  be  challenged,  I  shall  fight,  and  I  shall  be  killed." 


Lecompton  Constitution  Rejected         255 

fornia  and  took  part  in  the  heated  political  contest  of  1859. 
The  election  occurred  on  September  /th ;  on  the  I3th  he  was 
shot  in  a  duel  with  David  S.  Terry,  a  Democrat  of  Southern 
birth.  The  duel  worked  a  political  revolution  in  California. 
It  filled  the  whole  land  with  excitement,  and  Broderick  was 
regarded  as  a  martyr. 

The  honorable  part  taken  by  Senators  Crittenden  and  Bell 
added  to  the  esteem  in  which  they  were  generally  held.  The 
Whigs  though  without  a  distinct  party  yet  rejoiced  to  see  their 
ancient  traditions  revived.  Letcher  knew  that  Crittenden 
would  stand  up  as  ''firm  as  the  Rock  of  Ages  against  the  most 
barefaced  fraud  and  cheating  the  world  ever  saw."  "You 
have  done  important  service  for  the  country,"  wrote  Elisha 
Wittlesey,1  speaking  for  the  Whigs  of  the  Western  Reserve. 
Governor  Chase  spoke  for  the  whole  people  of  Ohio  in  a  cordial 
letter,2  which  did  not  find  its  way  to  the  press,  only  the  clos 
ing  paragraph  of  which  need  be  given  here : 

You  will  not  expect  me  to  coincide  in  the  views  of  the  slavery 
question  expressed  in  your  speech,  but  in  your  desire  that  every 
State  and  section  of  the  Union  shall  be  maintained  in  the  full  enjoy 
ment  of  all  constitutional  rights,  I  do  most  fully  coincide,  and 
though  sensible  that  no  opinion  of  mine  can  be  of  any  particular 
consequence  to  you,  I  cannot  refuse  myself  the  pleasure  of  saying 
how  much  I  have  been  gratified  by  the  great  force  of  your  argument, 
and  the  liberal  and  patriotic  character  of  your  sentiments.  I  feel 
confident  that  among  the  acts  which  have  attracted  towards  you  so 
large  a  share  of  the  admiration  and  respect  of  our  countrymen,  and 
have  advanced  you  to  the  conspicuous  position  you  now  hold  in  the 
public  estimation,  this  speech  and  your  action  in  regard  to  the  Le 
compton  bill  will  not  be  regarded  as  the  least  important  and  the 
least  worthy. 

There  was  a  spontaneous  movement  to  honor  the  Kentucky 
Senator.  His  journey  from  Washington  to  his  home  was  an 
ovation  similar  to  what  was  wont  to  be  accorded  to  the 

1MS.  Crittenden  Papers. 

2  J/5.  Ibid.     Dated  from  the  Executive  Department,  Columbus,  April  9,  1858. 


256  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

immortal  Clay.  ' '  There  are  thousands  of  us  here,"  said  Gover 
nor  Corwin,  speaking  on  behalf  of  the  citizens  of  Cincinnati, 
"who  claim  you  as  a  personal  friend,  and  we  have  assembled 
because  we  love  the  man  John  J.  Crittenden."  1  Covington 
and  Frankfort  vied  with  the  cities  of  Ohio  in  cordial  greetings 
to  the  "incorruptible  statesman,"  whose  unionism  embraced 
"the  whole  vast  confederation." 

In  striking  contrast  to  the  course  of  the  venerable  Ken- 
tuckian,  who  had  divested  himself  of  party  feeling,  was  that 
of  the  distinguished  Georgian  and  whilom  Whig  leader,  Alex 
ander  H.  Stephens.  He  influenced  the  tone  of  Mr.  Buchanan's 
special  message,  and  led  the  administration  forces  in  the  House. 
It  is  certain  that  without  his  skill  and  energy  the  defeat  of  the 
original  measure  would  have  been  greater  than  it  was.  With 
Stephens  it  was  not  a  game  to  make  another  slave  State  — 
climate  and  the  law  of  population  were  against  that — but  de 
votion  to  a  mere  abstraction— -principle  he  called  it, — the  rights 
and  equality  of  the  States  as  defined  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  the 
maintenance  of  which  he  believed  worth  the  Union  itself.2 

With  great  acumen  the  historian  Froude  points  out  the  diffi 
culty  of  judging  equitably  of  the  actions  of  public  men  when 
private  as  well  as  general  motives  have  been  allowed  to  influ 
ence  them,  or  when  their  actions  seem  to  result  from  personal 
inclinations  as  well  as  from  national  policy.  "In  life,  as  we 
actually  experience  it,  motives  slide  one  into  the  other,  and 
the  most  careful  analysis  will  fail  adequately  to  sift  them." 
This  difficulty  confronts  us  in  judging  of  the  course  of  Stephen 
A.  Douglas  from  the  moment  the  Lecompton  conspiracy  be 
came  a  living  factor  in  American  politics  down  to  the  close  of 
the  campaign  of  1860.  He  was  condemned  in  bitter,  almost 
brutal  terms  by  one  faction  of  the  Democratic  party  for  break 
ing  with  the  administration,  and  extolled  beyond  human  merit 
by  the  other.  "Douglas,"  said  Letcher,  "will  cling  to  the 
Democratic  banner  as  long  as  a  shred  is  left ;  his  party  may 

1  Cincinnati  Commercial,  June  21,  1858. 

2  Speech  of  Jan.  6,  1859. 

*  History  of  England,  vol.  i..  chap.  2. 


Douglas  Breaks  with  President  257 

kick  him,  beat  him,  but  as  long  as  he  has  a  hope  of  being 
taken  up  as  a  candidate  for  the  presidency  he  will  humble 
himself  too  low  to  be  respected  by  his  party."  But  Letcher 
was  a  Southern  Whig  who  did  not  believe  in  extending  the 
peculiar  institution,  and  still  had  his  armor  on.  Mr.  Douglas's 
senatorial  term  was  about  expiring,  and  he  had  to  consider 
what  effect  his  support  of  the  Lecompton  swindle  would  have 
on  his  chances  of  being  returned.  To  break  with  the  admin 
istration  would  be  to  invite  his  deposition  as  a  leader,  even  his 
expulsion  from  the  party.  In  times  past  the  resentment  of 
the  President  had  been  fatal  to  any  Democratic  independent. 
By  keeping  terms  with  the  administration  Douglas's  nomina 
tion  at  Charleston  was  almost  certain  to  follow  in  1860,  and  his 
election  with  the  help  of  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Indiana, 
Illinois,  California  and  Oregon  was  probable.  Instead  of  hav 
ing  the  opposition  of  the  administration  in  his  Senatorial  can 
vass  in  1858  he  would  have  had  its  powerful  support,  and  his 
success  does  not  admit  of  doubt.  The  devotion  of  his  friends 
was  the  same  devotion  that  made  Jefferson  and  Jackson  party 
heroes  despite  occasional  vagaries.  We  must  conclude  that 
there  was  a  consideration  of  greater  moment  than  the  presi 
dency,  of  importance  in  connection  with  a  return  to  the  Senate. 
Douglas  was  too  deeply  compromised  in  the  Kansas-Ne 
braska  legislation  safely  to  renounce  what  he  had  proclaimed  as 
it  were  from  the  housetops  as  the  great  principle  of  popular 
sovereignty  and  to  defend  a  flagrant  fraud,  even  if  his  soul  did 
not  revolt  from  it.  When  he  threw  down  the  gage  to  the 
President  he  denounced  the  wrong  with  characteristic  vigor 
and  with  apparent  sincerity.  He  was  enlisted  on  the  side  of 
morality,  and  the  consciousness  of  that  fact  gave  a  sublime 
effect  to  his  vindication  of  his  course.  He  was  first  of  all  a 
leader  of  men,  and  the  possession  of  that  power  was  greater 
than  the  presidency.  The  session  of  the  Senate  closed  with 
Douglas  the  hero  of  the  debate,  and  he  returned  to  Illinois  ac 
companied  by  the  plaudits  of  the  majority  of  his  own  party,  of 

1  R.  P.  Letcher  to  J.  J.  Crittenden,  Jan.  20,  1859.     Life,  vol.  ii.,  p.  170.     This 
condemnation  was  on  account  of  Douglas's  attendance  at  a  party  caucus. 

VOL.   I.  — 17. 


258  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

the  conservative  Whigs  and  of  many  influential  Republicans  1 
who  favored  his  re-election  to  the  Senate.  The  defeat  of  the 
administration  and  a  permanent  breach  in  the  Democratic 
party  were  regarded  by  them  as  of  the  first  importance.  But 
they  had  not  taken  into  consideration  the  vitality  of  political 
antagonisms  in  a  community  arising  from  years  of  contention, 
nor  suspected  the  existence  of  an  ambition  as  great  as  Douglas's 
own.  The  Republicans  of  Illinois  did  not  believe  in  the  sin 
cerity  of  the  man  who  originated  the  legislation  of  1854. 
Abraham  Lincoln  held  tenaciously  to  the  position  he  had  won 
as  leader  of  the  Republicans  of  Illinois,  and  seized  upon  mir 
aculous  Opportunity  as  he  came  rushing  by  and  flung  himself 
upon  him.2 

His  speech  at  the  State  convention  held  at  Springfield,  June 
i6th,  was  a  philosophical  exposition  of  the  principles  dividing 
the  parties  of  the  country,  and  contained  a  warning  against  the 
policy  which  had  been  proposed  of  enlisting  under  the  banner 
of  Douglas.  "Our  cause,"  said  he,  "must  be  intrusted  to  and 
conducted  by  its  own  undoubted  friends  whose  hands  are  free, 
whose  hearts  are  in  the  work,  who  do  care  for  the  result." 
This  speech  had  been  prepared  with  unusual  care,  and  com 
mitted  the  party  to  advanced  ground  on  the  slavery  contro 
versy.  Any  hope  of  an  alliance  with  the  popular-sovereignty 
Democrats  was  cut  off  by  the  action  of  the  convention  and  the 
sentiments  of  this  speech.  This  result  was  doubtless  designed 
by  the  leader,  who  was  preparing  the  way  for  his  own  career. 
After  the  speech  had  been  written  it  was  read  to  a  company  of 
political  friends  assembled  in  the  State  Library  before  its  pub 
lic  delivery.  When  Mr.  Lincoln  called  for  suggestions,  John 
Bunn  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  sentences,  "A  house 
divided  against  itself  cannot  stand,"  "I  believe  this  govern 
ment  cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free," 
ought  to  be  struck  out.  This  was  the  opinion  of  all  present. 
"Those  sentences,"  said  Mr.  Lincoln  with  great  firmness, 

1  Mr.  Greeley  and  other  leaders  in  the  East  advised  the  Republicans  of  Illinois 
to  give  Douglas  their  support. 

2  Cf.  Carlyle's  Frederick  the  Great,  vol.  iv.,  p.  146. 


Lincoln's  Springfield  Speech  259 

"shall  remain."  "Then,"  remarked  one,  "you  will  be  de 
feated  for  Senator."  "Very  well,"  replied  Mr.  Lincoln,  "we 
may  lose  the  senatorship,  but  to  win  in  the  future  we  must 
build  upon  the  truth." 

Mr.  Emerson  had  given  many  reasons  in  his  speech  of  May 
26,  1856,  why  the  two  distinct  social  systems  could  not  consti 
tute  one  state,  and  the  same  thought  clothed  in  varied  lan 
guage  became  a  bone  of  contention  in  the  fierce  strife  ending 
in  the  rebellion.  In  his  speech  at  Rochester  in  the  summer  of 
1858,  Mr.  Seward  declared  that  the  contest  was  "an  irrepress 
ible  conflict  between  opposing  and  enduring  forces;  and  it 
means  that  the  United  States  must  and  will,  sooner  or  later, 
become  either  entirely  a  slaveholding  nation  or  entirely  a  free- 
labor  nation."  Mr.  Seward  was  a  great  figure  in  public  life,  of 
world-wide  distinction,  and  around  his  head  henceforth  the 
lightnings  from  the  political  thunder-clouds  played,  and  he  en 
dured  the  obloquy  of  being  declared  a  disunionist;  whereas 
Mr.  Lincoln,  little  known,  stood  unscathed. 

The  joint  debate  between  Lincoln  and  Douglas  during  the 
senatorial  canvass  of  1858  was  an  incident  in  American  politics 
of  vast  importance,  which,  in  the  providence  of  God,  made  one 
of  the  champions  President,  and  the  other  instrumental  in  his 
election.  The  repeal  of  the  Missouri  restriction  was  the  be 
ginning  of  a  new  era — the  years  of  which  mark  the  stages  of 
revolution.  The  debate  of  1858  argued  the  whole  question 
before  the  court  of  the  American  people  who  alone  had  the 
responsibility  of  final  judgment.  Mr.  Lincoln  adroitly  led  Mr. 
Douglas  into  an  avowal  that  forever  separated  him  from  the 
South,  and  yet  the  avowal  which  recognized  the  right  of  the 
first  settlers  in  a  territory  to  exclude  slavery  was  in  harmony 
with  his  popular-sovereignty  theory,  though  not  with  the  de 
cision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case. 

Mr.   Lincoln   lost  the  senatorship,  but  the  ability  he  dis- 

1  MS.  Account  of  a  conversation  with  John  Bunn.  Mr.  Bunn  was  the 
youngest  person  present,  and  was  getting  his  first  experience  in  practical  politics. 
He  says  that  Mr.  Herndon  was  not  present  at  this  conference,  and  of  course  could 
not  have  made  there  the  prophetic  remark  set  down  in  his  book. 


260  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

played  in  debate  was  generally  recognized,  and  he  was  invited 
to  other  States.  He  spoke  at  Columbus  and  Cincinnati  the 
following  year  during  the  gubernatorial  canvass,1  and  was  heard 
by  large  and  attentive  audiences.  Mr.  Douglas  also  spoke  in 
Ohio — at  Columbus,  Dayton,  Hamilton  and  Cincinnati  —  to 
vast  assemblies  of  enthusiastic  admirers,  who  saw  in  the  per 
sonal  triumph  of  the  Illinois  Senator  the  deep  humiliation  of 
the  President. 

Mr.  Buchanan's  lot  was  an  unhappy  one,  and  before  1859  a^ 
of  the  bright  anticipations  he  had  cherished  before  his  inaugu 
ration  of  his  instrumentality  in  securing  the  blessings  of  peace 
to  a  distracted  country  had  fled,  and  he  looked  dejected,  aged 
and  ill.  He  was  in  a  sense  a  buffer  between  opposing  forces, 
and  an  object  of  suspicion.  Did  he  ask  for  an  increase  in  the 
army  to  enable  him  to  put  down  the  Mormon  rebellion,3  the 
Republicans  declared  it  was  to  enable  their  opponents  to  op 
press  and  overawe  the  people  of  Kansas.  Did  he  direct  the 
enforcement  of  the  neutrality  laws,  the  Southern  Democrats 
accused  him  of  being  inimical  to  their  interests.  As  he  pro 
tested  and  wrung  his  hands,  all  the  world  clearly  saw  that  he 
was  out  of  place,  a  miserable  old  faineant  in  the  hands  of  am 
bitious  men  who  were  pursuing  a  definite  policy.  This  policy, 
in  case  of  failure  to  equalize  the  representation  of  the  sections 
in  the  Senate,  contemplated  the  acquisition  of  Cuba  and  of  the 
Central  American  states.  William  Walker,  an  adventurous 
Southerner,  had  made  a  successful  landing  in  Nicaragua  during 
the  administration  of  President  Pierce,  and  set  up  a  govern- 

1  Which  resulted  in  the  election  of  William  Dennison. 

*  The  Governor  of  Utah,  appointed  by  the  President,  was  escorted  to  his  des 
tination  by  troops.  September  15,  1857,  Governor  Brigham  Young  issued  his 
proclamation,  in  the  style  of  an  independent  ruler,  announcing  his  purpose  to  re 
sist  by  force  of  arms  the  entry  of  the  United  States  troops  into  the  territory. 
Lieut. -General  Daniel  H.  Wells,  Nauvoo  Legion,  issued  orders  to  stampede  the 
animals  of  the  government  train,  to  obstruct  the  road,  to  burn  the  grass,  capture 
supplies  etc.,  all  of  which  was  done.  It  became  necessary  for  Gen.  Johnston  to 
reduce  the  rations  of  the  soldiers,  who  were  subjected  to  much  suffering.  Two 
additional  regiments  were  authorized  but  not  employed.  The  new  Governor  was 
installed  and  peace  reigned  in  Utah. — Annual  Message  of  the  President,  Dec., 
1858. 


Central  America  and  Cuba  261 

ment  which  he  maintained  for  a  short  time,  but  being  hemmed 
in  by  the  natives  he  was  compelled  to  withdraw.  He  had  been 
visited  by  Mr.  Soule,  had  issued  a  decree  to  legalize  slavery, 
and  had  received  encouragement  from  the  Pierce  administra 
tion.  Doubtless  he  expected  to  be  supported  by  Mr.  Buchanan 
when  he  went  on  a  new  filibustering  expedition  in  the  latter 
part  of  1857,  and  not  without  reason.  Unfortunately  for  the 
success  of  his  enterprise,  Commodore  Paulding,  who  was  com 
manding  off  the  coast  of  Nicaragua,  interpreted  his  instructions 
strictly,  and  landing  a  force  surprised  Walker  in  his  camp,  dis 
armed  his  few  hundred  men  and  sent  them  home.  The  chief 
was  permitted  to  take  the  regular  steamer  from  Aspinwall  to 
New  York. 

The  President  in  communicating  the  facts  to  Congress  de 
clared  "that  Commodore  Paulding  had  violated  the  neutrality 
of  a  foreign  state  and  had  been  guilty  of  a  grave  error."  This 
censure  of  a  gallant  officer  was  severely  animadverted  upon  by 
opposition  Senators,  and  commended  by  the  friends  of  the 
administration.  It  was  admitted  that  Walker  had  violated 
our  neutrality  laws,  but  as  he  was  captured  on  land  instead  of 
on  the  sea,  the  President  directed  his  discharge.  Senator 
Crittenden  made  the  point  that  as  Commodore  Paulding  had 
entered  the  country  with  the  permission  of  the  government  of 
Nicaragua,  which  had  subsequently  thanked  him  in  the  most 
cordial  manner,  there  was  no  violation  of  its  neutrality.  He 
protested  against  the  censure.  It  was  not  proper  that  a  mere 
opinion  of  the  President,  expressed  when  the  case  was  but  half 
before  him,  should  be  the  rule  of  our  naval  officers  all  over  the 
world.1  Walker's  plan  to  found  an  Anglo-American  republic 
by  a  union  of  the  five  states  of  Central  America,2  was  thus 
frustrated,  to  the  regret  of  the  Southern  leaders.  Before  a 
new  start  could  be  made  a  crisis  had  been  reached  in  the 
political  affairs  of  the  United  States. 

Disappointed  in  this  direction,  the  Southern  leaders  renewed 

1  Cong.  Globe,  Jan.,  1858. 

2  The  five  states  had  an   area  of  155,664  square  miles,   and   a  population  of 
2,019,000. — Notes  on  Central  America,  by  E.  G.  Squires. 


262  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

their  efforts  to  acquire  Cuba,  in  which  they  had  the  co-opera 
tion  of  the  President.  When  Governor  Walker  saw  that 
Kansas  was  lost  to  the  South,  he  sought  to  reconcile  Mr.  Bu 
chanan  to  the  defeat  of  his  Lecompton  policy  by  reminding 
him  of  the  great  possibilities  of  Cuba  for  restoring  the  sectional 
equality.  The  Ostend  manifesto  was  issued  to  justify  a  seizure 
of  Cuba  in  case  Spain  refused  a  price.  As  President,  Mr.  Bu 
chanan  recommended  a  more  conservative  course  to  accom 
plish  the  acquisition  of  Cuba.  Reference  was  made  to  our 
unsatisfactory  relations  with  Spain,  to  her  offer  to  compromise 
claims  aggregating  $128,635.54  by  the  payment  of  one-third 
of  that  amount  and  to  the  necessity  of  some  action  that  should 
effect  a  settlement.  Jefferson  Davis  promptly  introduced  a 
resolution  1  making  it  the  duty  of  the  President  to  take  pos 
session  of  the  island  of  Cuba,  and  retain  it  until  these  claims 
were  paid  and  certain  unsettled  causes  of  complaint  were  ad 
justed  by  her.  The  object  of  this  resolution  was  plain  upon 
the  surface.  Cuba  once  in  our  possession  the  only  settlement 
of  the  causes  of  complaint  possible  would  have  been  the  sur 
render  of  the  island  to  the  United  States.  The  resolution 
went  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  who  later  re 
ported  a  bill  appropriating  $30,000,000  to  facilitate  the  acqui 
sition  of  Cuba.3  The  law  of  our  national  existence,  said  the 
committee,  is  growth.  "We  cannot,  if  we  would,  disobey  it." 
Their  meaning  was  not  left  in  doubt.  Growth  meant  expan 
sion,  not  improvement  within.  "The  tendency  of  the  age  is 
the  expansion  of  the  great  Powers  of  the  world."  When  they 
cease  to  extend  their  territorial  limits  the  period  of  decadence 
will  begin.  The  law  of  fate  of  all  nations,  as  of  man,  is 
growth,  and  when  that  ceases,  decay  ensues. 

A  debate  followed  this  report,  which  developed  many  inter 
esting  facts.  Senator  Slidell  expressed  sympathy  for  the  Cu 
bans  who,  he  said,  ' '  were  panting  for  liberty. "  This  aspiration 
for  liberty,  retorted  Senator  Thompson  of  Kentucky,  was  but 
another  name  for  avarice — that  avarice  which  made  the  Cuban 

1  Cong.  Globe,  Dec.,  1858. 

8 Ibid. ,  second  session,  Thirty-fifth  Cong.,  1859. 


Central  America  and  Cuba  263 

planter  annually  estimate  the  value  of  a  negro  in  sugar.  "He 
supplies  him  from  the  coast  of  Africa  and  by  his  infernal  al 
chemy  makes  him  into  molasses  or  sugar."  These  people  with 
their  barbarism  and  their  cruelty  were  not  fit  to  come  into  the 
Union. 

Senator  Crittenden  estimated  the  cost  at  $200,000,000,  a 
preposterous  sum  at  a  time  when  a  knock  upon  the  Treasury 
emitted  a  mournful  sound.  Senator  Chandler  entered  more 
elaborately  into  the  financial  view  and  produced  some  startling 
figures:  Of  the  thirty  millions  proposed  to  be  appropriated 
each  Congressional  district  would  be  required  to  pay  $127,- 
118.64.  Of  the  lowest  estimated  sum  finally  to  be  paid — two 
hundred  millions  of  dollars — each  district  would  pay  $847,454. 
The  State  of  Michigan  would  be  compelled  to  pay  a  perpetual 
annual  tax  of  $406,777.92  ;  the  State  of  Ohio,  $1,073,791.  The 
island  of  Cuba  contained  19,350,000  acres,  for  which  it  was 
proposed  to  pay  ten  dollars  an  acre,  and  then  not  an  acre 
would  be  acquired.  Better  lands — millions  upon  millions  of 
them — were  being  sold  by  the  United  States  government  for 
one  dollar  and  a  quarter  per  acre,  or  given  away  to  promote 
schools  or  the  construction  of  railroads.  Would  such  a  pro 
position  pay?  Was  the  perpetuation  of  the  institution  of 
slavery  so  dear  to  the  American  heart  that  the  free  people  of 
the  United  States  should  be  taxed  so  enormously  for  that 
purpose? 

And  what  were  the  Cubans?  The  white  population  were 
ignorant,  vicious  and  priest-ridden.  The  people  would  not 
labor,  and  they  would  resort  to  any  shifts  of  crime  to  obtain 
subsistence.  Bribery  was  universal  from  the  Governor-General 
down.  Prior  to  the  administration  of  General  Tacon  there 
was  not  a  crime  on  the  calendar  which  had  not  its  fixed  value 
in  the  island  of  Cuba.  The  price  of  assassination  was  an  ounce 
of  gold  a  head !  One  could  scarcely  walk  out  in  the  streets  of 
Havana  in  the  morning  without  finding  one  or  more  dead 
bodies,  the  result  of  the  last  night's  assassinations  or  robberies. 
The  gibbet  was  a  familiar  object — the  gibbet  with  a  human 
skull  rattling  in  the  wind,  at  a  four  corners,  or  at  some  place 


264  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

where  a  murderer  had  met  his  fate.  The  extent  of  crime  had 
been  lessened  under  Tacon,  but  it  took  an  army  of  twenty 
thousand  men  to  accomplish  it.  With  ownership,  at  a  cost  of 
two  hundred  millions,  would  come  the  responsibility  of  admin 
istration  and  the  support  of  an  army  greater  in  numbers  than 
the  one  then  in  the  service  of  our  government.  And  this  is 
what  slavery  demanded  to  keep  the  peace;  what  the  President 
in  his  impotency  recommended  to  Congress! 

The  proposition  could  not  be  made  to  run  on  four  feet  in  the 
presence  of  men  of  practical  buisness  sense.  The  administra 
tion  was  relieved  from  its  indefensible  position  by  the  intro 
duction  of  a  resolution,  which  was  adopted,1  approving  of  the 
message  of  the  President  respecting  the  propriety  and  ultimate 
necessity  of  acquiring  the  island  of  Cuba  by  the  United  States, 
whilst  refraining  from  any  committal  as  to  future  measures 
which  circumstances,  whether  affecting  the  peaceful  relations 
of  the  two  countries  or  the  safety  of  the  United  States,  might 
render  necessary.  This  was  rather  an  ignominious  retreat,  but 
prudence  dictated  it.  The  Viking  blood  in  us  still  moves  to 
the  acquisition  of  adjacent  islands. 

Defeat  met  the  administration  on  every  side.  The  Presi 
dent  had  planted  his  feet  in  the  wrong  road — in  a  road  passing 
through  fens  by  which  solid  ground  might  never  be  reached. 
His  party  in  his  own  State  deserted  him  ;  the  whole  free  North 
deserted  him,  and  turned  in  the  direction  of  reform  and  pro 
gress.  The  elections  of  1858-59  rebuked  the  frauds  upon  the 
franchise,  rebuked  the  Lecompton  wrong,  rebuked  the  use  of 
the  judiciary  for  partisan  ends,  rebuked  bribery  employed  to 
debauch  the  people's  representatives  and  to  intimidate  officers, 
rebuked  the  waste  of  money  in  administration.  He  had  the  un 
speakable  humiliation  of  seeing  Walker  and  Stanton,  agents 
chosen  by  himself  for  their  high  character,  and  intimate  friends" 
in  Pennsylvania  who  had  vouched  for  him,2  exposing  to  all  the 
world  the  crimes  committed  under  his  administration ;  of  see- 

1  February  21,  1859.     Introduced  by  Mr.  Mason,  of  Virginia. 

2  See  Forney's  Anecdotes  of  Public  Men,  and  speeches  by  Representative  Hick- 
man  in  the  House,  Cong.   Globe,  1859-1860. 


John  Brown's  Raid  265 

ing  the  great  majority  of  his  fellow  Democrats  following  Doug 
las,  whom  he  had  sought  to  crush  and  drive  out  of  the  party. 
The  petty  meanness  of  deposing  the  Illinois  Senator  from  the 
head  of  the  Committee  on  Territories  seemed  only  to  increase 
his  popularity.  If  Mr.  Buchanan  had  turned  on  his  course  and 
dealt  with  conspiracy  with  Jacksonian  vigor,  his  party  would 
have  been  formidable  again  in  1860,  but  he  was  as  incapable  of 
that  as  By-ends  or  my  Lord  Time-server  was  to  desert  old 
principles. 

Before  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress  convened  for  organization, 
a  startling  episode  occurred  which  seemed  to  advertise  the  fact 
that  the  American  nation  was  already  in  the  throes  of  revolu 
tion.  Violence  employed  in  support  of  wrong  was  not  con 
fined  to  the  plains  of  Kansas.  Out  of  the  storm  raised  there 
wild  spirits  emerged  who  struck  a  blow  at  social  order  in  the 
Old  Dominion.  On  the  night  of  the  i6th  of  October,  1859,  a 
small  body  of  men,  led  by  John  Brown,  surprised  the  arsenal 
at  Harper's  Ferry,  patrolled  the  town  and  made  prisoners  of 
several  citizens  and  planters  of  the  neighborhood.  A  few 
hours  sufficed  to  surround  the  marauders,  some  of  whom  were 
killed  and  the  six  remaining,  including  Brown  and  two  sons, 
barricaded  themselves  in  the  engine  house.  Brown  might 
easily  have  escaped  during  the  day,  but  some  power  held  him 
to  his  fate.  When  he  surrendered  he  was  already  wounded 
and  his  sons  lay  dead  by  his  side.  He  had  borne  himself  with 
admirable  coolness  and  courage;  with  humanity  toward  those 
he  had  made  prisoners.  He  was  captured  by  Col.  Robert  E. 
Lee,  of  the  United  States  army,  who  turned  him  over  to 
Governor  Wise.  Brown  was  speedily  indicted,  tried  and  con 
demned,  and  was  executed  December  2d.  He  handed  one  of 
his  guards  a  paper  on  which  he  had  written  this  sentence:  "I, 
John  Brown,  am  now  quite  certain  that  the  crimes  of  this 
guilty  land  will  never  be  purged  away  but  with  blood.  I  had, 
as  I  now  think,  vainly  flattered  myself  that  without  very  much 
bloodshed  it  might  be  done."  And  this  was  the  end  of  earth 
for  poor  Brown,  a  self-appointed  victim  in  our  great  tragedy. 
He  was  of  Puritan  type,  resolute,  without  fear  of  man  or  death 


266  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

— one  who  loved  humanity,  who  felt  he  was  called  to  set  the 
time  right,  and  whose  devotion  became  fanaticism.  When  he 
put  arms  into  the  hands  of  the  poor  slaves  and  told  them  to 
fight  for  their  freedom,  they  fled  to  the  protection  of  their 
masters.  In  his  imagination  he  had  endowed  these  untaught 
descendants  of  barbarians  with  the  attributes  and  the  aspira 
tions  of  a  nobler  manhood.  It  was  a  delusion. 

Take  the  files  of  any  newspaper  of  the  day,  and  you  will 
read  the  columns,  the  pages  devoted  to  the  deeds  of  this  un 
fortunate  man,  to  the  pranks  of  the  Governor  of  Virginia,  who 
was  a  great  master  of  political  pyrotechnics,  to  the  foolish  ex 
citement  of  the  President,  who,  besides  despatching  troops  to 
Harper's  Ferry,  called  out  the  militia  of  the  District  of  Colum 
bia,  and  to  the  commotion  prevalent  throughout  the  land. 
From  Charleston,  which  seems  to  have  been  sane  throughout 
these  scenes,  there  came  up  a  protest  against  this  military  dis 
play  to  capture  a  score  of  men — a  whole  State  arming  and  her 
executive  telegraphing  frantic  appeals  for  aid  to  other  States. 
The  solemn  ending  was  preceded  by  a  broad  and  pathetic 
farce.  The  South  was  humiliated.1 

The  people  of  the  North  were  innocent  of  any  complicity  in 
this  mad  enterprise.  It  met  with  universal  condemnation. 
Nevertheless,  party  prejudice  moved  to  vague  accusations,  and 
for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  responsibility  on  the  Republican 
party,  Mr.  Mason  moved  in  the  Senate  the  appointment  of  a 
committee  to  ascertain  the  facts  —  whether  the  seizure  of  the 
arsenal  was  made  under  color  of  any  organization  intended  to 
subvert  the  government  of  any  of  the  States  of  the  Union, 
whether  any  citizens  of  the  United  States  not  present  were  im 
plicated  therein,  and  what,  if  any,  legislation  was  necessary. 
Mr.  Trumbull  said  he  hoped  the  investigation  would  be 

Charleston  Mercury.  "From  the  five  hundred  invaders  in  possession  of 
Harper's  Ferry,  and  the  one  thousand  negroes  carried  off  to  the  mountains  of 
Pennsylvania — from  the  further  invasion  and  threats  of  invasion,  it  is  a  tissue 
of  exaggeration  and  invention  sufficient  to  stir  the  gall  of  any  Southerner."  Re 
wards  were  offered  through  the  Richmond  papers  of  $5000  for  the  head  of  Gid- 
dings  and  $30,000  for  the  head  of  Seward. 


John  Brown's  Raid  267 

thorough  and  complete.  At  the  same  time  he  moved  to 
amend  the  resolution  so  as  to  instruct  the  committee  to  in 
quire  into  the  facts  attending  the  seizure  and  robbery  of  the 
arsenal  at  Liberty,  Missouri,  in  December,  1855,  which  was 
followed  by  an  invasion  of  the  territory  of  Kansas  and  the 
murder  of  some  of  the  inhabitants;  the  object  of  such  invasion, 
etc.  But  as  this  was  goring  the  ox  of  the  other  side,  it  was 
rejected  by  a  vote  of  22  to  32.'  On  the  i$th  of  June,  1860, 
after  months  spent  in  inquiry,  the  committee  could  implicate 
no  one  in  the  North  in  Brown's  invasion,  but  divided  in  sub 
mitting  two  partisan  reports. 

During  the  debate  on  the  resolution  and  report,  Mr.  Clay 
of  Alabama,  addressing  the  Republican  Senators,  said :  The 
people  of  Alabama  "will  never  submit  to  the  government  of  a 
President  professing  your  political  faith  and  elected  by  your 
sectional  majority."  Gwin  of  California  confirmed  the  re 
mark,  and  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  South  would  make 
it  good.  This  brought  Hale  to  his  feet,  who  replied  with  force 
and  animation:  "Then  we  have  been  living  under  a  delusion; 
we  are  not  a  Union  of  States:  the  free  States  are  subject  pro 
vinces,  and  our  people  do  not  choose  a  President.  They  but 
perform  an  idle  ceremony."  Then  the  North  occupied  the 
position  to  the  South  that  the  old  French  Parliament  did  to 
their  monarch.  He  made  the  decrees,  the  prerogative  of  the 
Parliament  was  to  register  them  —  that  was  all. 

Why,  sir,  how  idle  is  the  idea  of  any  equality,  when  we  are  told 
beforehand  that  if  we  exercise  the  right  guaranteed  to  us  by  the 
Constitution  in  all  its  forms  and  in  all  its  spirit,  and  vote  for  the 
man  whom  we  prefer,  and  succeed  in  consummating  our  wishes 
through  the  forms  of  the  Constitution,  then  the  government  is  at 
an  end!  So  be  it,  sir;  so  be  it.2 

1  Cong.  Globe.  2  Cong.  Globe. 


CHAPTER    X 

THE   CONVENTIONS   OF    1860 — THE  ELECTION   OF   LINCOLN 

WHILE  John  Brown  and  his  tragic  fate  occupied  the 
Senate,  the  House,  surrounded  by  the  heat  and  flame 
of  the  controversy  started  by  the  repeal  of  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise,  seemed  to  be  incapable  of  proceeding  in 
an  orderly  manner  to  the  transaction  of  any  business.  It  was 
wilfully  given  over  to  chaos  for  two  months  by  the  desperate 
men  in  control  of  the  Democratic  minority.  The  President 
had  made  a  patriotic  appeal  to  the  Representatives  to  put 
an  end  to  sectional  strife,  but  no  class  had  any  respect  for 
him,  and  to  the  close  of  his  administration  he  was  irreverently 
referred  to  as  "The  Old  Public  Functionary"  of  the  White 
House.1  The  way  to  peace  seemed  easy  to  him.  The  Su 
preme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case  and  the  Thirty-fifth 
Congress  in  the  English  bill  had  removed  obstacles  before  re 
garded  as  insurmountable.  By  the  decision  of  the  court  the 
status  of  a  territory,  during  the  immediate  period  from  its 
first  settlement  until  it  should  become  a  State,  had  been  ir 
revocably  fixed.  Emigrants  from  all  of  the  States  could  meet 
there  on  a  common  platform,  taking  with  them  that  species  of 
property  best  adapted,  in  their  own  opinion,  to  promote  their 
welfare.  From  natural  causes  the  slavery  question  in  each 

Alluding  to  this  clause  in  the  message  of  the  President:  "  This  advice  pro 
ceeds  from  the  heart  of  an  old  public  functionary ,  whose  service  commenced  in  the 
last  generation  among  the  wise  and  conservative  statesmen  of  that  day,  now  nearly 
all  passed  away,  and  whose  first  and  dearest  earthly  wish  is  to  leave  his  country 
tranquil,  prosperous,  united  and  powerful." 

268 


Speakership  Contest  269 

case  would  settle  itself.  Under  the  provision  made  by  Con 
gress,  the  people  of  Kansas  had  elected  to  remain  in  a  territorial 
condition  until  their  numbers  increased  to  a  Representative 
ratio,  and  meanwhile  the  rights  of  the  slaveholders  were  pro 
tected  by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court.  The  number  of 
free  States  had  been  increased  by  the  admission  of  Minnesota 
and  Oregon. 

To  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Thirty-sixth  Con 
gress  there  had  been  returned  one  hundred  and  nine  Republi 
cans,  one  hundred  and  one  Democrats,  twenty-six  Americans 
and  one  Whig.  It  was  impossible  for  either  the  Republicans 
or  the  Democrats  to  organize  the  House  without  the  help  of 
the  Americans.  There  were  members  in  the  minority  who 
were  willing  that  the  wheels  of  government  should  be  blocked 
by  the  non-organization  of  the  House,  who  even  threatened 
to  continue  a  state  of  anarchy  until  the  nation  was  rent  into 
fragments.  These,  therefore,  lent  their  support  to  a  resolution 
introduced  by  John  B.  Clark  of  Missouri,  pledging  the  House 
not  to  support  any  candidate  for  Speaker  who  had  endorsed  a 
book  written  by  Mr.  Helper  of  North  Carolina,  entitled  The 
Impending  Crisis  of  the  South :  How  to  Meet  It ;  they  insisted 
on  the  right  of  unlimited  debate  pending  an  organization  — 
thus  giving  to  a  few  lawless  spirits  the  power  to  prevent  an  or 
ganization.  The  passion  of  partyism  alone  would  not  have 
sufficed  to  move  members  to  such  desperate  courses:  the 
storm  of  revolution  was  rising,  and  those  who  had  invoked  it 
and  prospectively  ventured  their  fortunes  in  it  assumed  a  reck 
lessness  which  in  a  calmer  period  they  would  have  abhorred. 
The  resolution,  which  ostensibly  censured  John  Sherman,1  who 
was  supported  by  his  party  for  Speaker,  was  only  a  means 
to  promote  the  purpose  of  the  anarchists,  and  it  was  unpre 
cedented  in  the  preliminary  stages  of  the  organization  of  a 

1  Mr.  Sherman  at  the  request  of  Gov.  Morgan,  of  New  York,  as  had  other  pub 
lic  men,  lent  the  use  of  his  name  to  promote  the  sale  of  Helper's  book  on  the 
assurance  that  it  was  unobjectionable.  He  had  not  read  it.  Helper,  a  Southern 
man,  resented  the  rule  of  an  aristocracy  and  suggested  that  the  mass  of  whites  in 
the  South  who  had  no  interest  in  the  institution  of  slavery  should  refuse  their  sup 
port  to  slaveholders.  It  was  this  recommendation  that  made  the  trouble. 


270  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

legislative  body.  The  Republicans,  holding  that  only  two  mo 
tions  were  in  order  while  the  House  remained  unorganized, — to 
vote  for  a  Speaker  and  to  adjourn, — refused  to  participate  in 
the  debate  which  their  opponents  had  precipitated,  and  waited 
with  dignified  patience  for  an  opportunity  to  effect  an  organ 
ization.  Mr.  Sherman's  vote  on  several  occasions  lacked  only 
one  of  an  election,  but,  failing  to  secure  that,  on  the  3Oth  of 
January  he  withdrew  his  name  in  a  manly  speech  in  which  he 
briefly  described  in  temperate  language  the  scenes  of  the  pre 
ceding  eight  weeks. 

The  large  plurality  of  the  members  of  the  House,  he  said, 

have  stood  undismayed  amid  threats  of  disunion  and  disorganiza 
tion,  conscious  of  the  rectitude  of  their  purposes;  warm  in  their  at 
tachment  to  the  Constitution  and  the  Union,  and  obedient  to  the 
rules  of  order  and  the  laws.  They  have  been  silent,  firm,  manly. 
On  the  other  hand,  they  have  seen  their  ancient  adversary,  and  their 
only  natural  adversary,  reviving  anew  the  fires  of  sectional  discord 
and  broken  into  fragments.  They  have  seen  some  of  them  shielding 
themselves  behind  a  written  combination  to  prevent  the  majority  of 
the  House  from  prescribing  rules  for  its  organization.  They  have 
heard  others  openly  pronounce  threats  of  disunion;  proclaim  that 
if  a  Republican  be  duly  elected  President  of  the  United  States  they 
would  tear  down  this  fair  fabric  of  our  rights  and  liberties  and 
break  up  the  Union  of  these  States.1  And  now  they  have  seen  their 
ancient  adversary,  broken,  dispersed  and  disorganized,  unite  in 
supporting  a  gentleman  who  was  elected  to  Congress  as  an  Ameri 
can  in  open,  avowed  opposition  to  the  Democratic  organization.2 

1  Representative  Reuben  Davis  of  Mississippi  said  :   "  Gentlemen  of  the  Repub 
lican  party,  I  warn  you.     Present  your  sectional  candidate  for  1860,  elect  him  as 
the  representative  of  your  system  of  labor  ;  take  possession  of  the  government  as 
the  instrument  of  your  power  in  this  contest  of  '  irrepressible  conflict,'  and  we  of  the 
South  will  tear  this  Constitution  in  pieces,  and  look  to  our  guns  for  justice  and 
right  against  aggression  and  wrong." 

Mr.  Crawford  of  Georgia  said  that  if  Henry  Ward  Beecher  were  to  visit  Vir 
ginia,  "he  not  only  would  be  denied  liberty  of  speech,  but  he  would  be  denied 
personal  liberty  also,  and  would  be  hung  higher  than  Haman,"  thus  denying  to  a 
citizen  of  another  State  the  protection  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution. 

2  The  American  was  W.  H.  N.  Smith  of  North  Carolina,  but  he  could  com 
mand  only  a  part  of  the  American  strength.     The  Democrats  began  by  supporting 


Speakership  Contest  271 

After  the  withdrawal  of  Mr.  Sherman,  on  the  1st  of  Febru 
ary,  William  Pennington  of  New  Jersey  received,  besides  the 
full  Republican  strength,  enough  American  votes  to  give  him 
a  majority  of  one,  and  thus  this  extraordinary  contest  was 
brought  to  a  close.  During  the  debate  conducted  by  the  Hot 
spurs  several  notable  incidents  occurred  which  are  a  part  of  the 
history  of  the  time.  Mr.  Vallandigham,  representing  the 
Third  District  of  Ohio,  declared  sentiments  which  foreshadowed 
the  treasonable  course  he  entered  on  two  or  three  years  later. 
After  announcing  that  he  was  as  "good  a  Western  fire-eater  as 
the  hottest  salamander  in  the  House,"  he  added  deliberately: 

In  all  this  controversy,  so  far  as  it  is  sectional,  I  occupy  the  posi 
tion  of  armed  neutrality.  I  am  not  a  Northern  man.  I  have  little 
sympathy  with  the  North;  no  very  good  feeling  for,  and  am  bound 
to  her  by  no  tie  whatever,1  other  than  what  were  once  and  ought  al 
ways  to  be  among  the  strongest  of  all  ties — a  common  language  and 
common  country.  Least  of  all  am  I  that  most  unseemly  and  abject 
of  all  political  spectacles — "a  Northern  man  with  Southern  princi 
ples."  When  I  emigrate  to  the  South,  take  up  my  abode  there, 
identify  myself  with  her  interests,  holding  slaves  or  holding  none, 
then,  and  not  till  then,  will  I  have  a  right,  and  will  it  be  my  duty, 
and  no  doubt  my  pleasure,  to  maintain  and  support  Southern  prin 
ciples  and  Southern  institutions.  Then,  sir,  I  am  not  a  Southern 
man  either,  although  in  this  unholy  and  most  unconstitutional 
crusade  against  the  South — my  most  cordial  sympathies  are  wholly 
with  her. 

One  speech,  a  very  notable  speech,  was  made  during  all  these 
weeks  in  defence  of  the  principles  of  the  Republican  party  and 
of  the  course  of  its  Representatives  in  this  grave  emergency. 
Thomas  Corwin,  after  a  brief  retirement  to  private  life,  had 
been  returned  to  the  scene  of  his  first  great  triumph  as  an 

Mr.  Bocock  of  Virginia,  but  the  war  on  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty 
broke  out  and  the  Democrats  divided.  On  the  last  ballot  nine  Southern  Demo 
crats  refused  to  vote  for  McClernand  of  Illinois,  a  friend  of  Senator  Douglas. 

'  Vallandigham  was  a  native  of  Ohio,  and  represented  a  populous  and  wealthy 
district. 


272 


A  Political  History  of  Slavery 


orator  which  made  him  a  favorite  of  the  whole  American  peo 
ple.  Then  pseans  were  heard  on  every  hand  in  honor  of  the 
Union;  now  his  return  is  on  the  eve  of  the  civil  war  he  fore 
shadowed  in  his  Mexican  speech  in  the  Senate.  He  had 
placed  Mr.  Sherman  in  nomination  for  Speaker,  and  after  lis 
tening  for  weeks  to  the  violent  threats  and  unjust  accusations, 
he  attempted  to  recall  the  Hotspurs  to  patriotic  duty  and  the 
House  to  a  condition  of  order.  The  motive  of  the  orator 
clearly  is  to  impress  upon  the  hearts  of  his  hearers  not  only 
the  precious  boon  of  the  Union,  but  the  truth  that  "the  ani 
mosities  are  mortal,  but  the  humanities  live  forever."  As  the 
word  went  out  that  Corwin  was  up  in  the  House,  every  foot  of 
space  was  quickly  occupied  by  an  eager  throng.  He  stands 
silent  for  some  moments,  his  thoughts  going  back  to  the  old 
hall  and  the  faces  once  familiar  there.  Here  is  the  rotund 
form,  the  wonderful  face,  the  brilliant  eyes  as  of  old,  but  the 
manner  of  the  orator  is  more  subdued.  An  air  of  melancholy 
steals  over  him,  as  he  surveys  his  audience:  the  eager  faces 
before  him  are  the  faces  of  strangers — his  contemporaries  who 
conferred  honor  upon  their  country  have  preceded  him  to  the 
silent  land.  He  now  speaks  to  those  who  are  to  be  the  actors 
in  the  bloody  scenes  he  had  described  in  his  vision  of  1847. 
There  is  a  tendency  to  pathos,  but  his  fellow-members,  by 
adroit  questioning,  invite  philosophical  disquisition,  or  start  a 
vein  of  humor,  or  provoke  a  flash  of  wit  worthy  of  the  days  of 
his  vigorous  manhood.  "If  the  interruptions  become  a  weari 
ness,"  he  quietly  remarks,  "if  everybody  is  to  be  tugging  at 
my  wheels,  I  shall  not  drive  to  the  end  of  my  journey  to-day." 
And  when  his  opponents  seek  to  break  the  thread  of  his  argu 
ment,  by  introducing  references  to  the  customs  of  the  ancients, 
he  abruptly  brings  the  question  before  the  House  again  by  re 
marking:  "Now,  Mr.  Clerk,  these  antiquarian  researches  will 
bring  us  back  to  Babylon  directly,  and  Egypt,  and  we  shall 
get  among  the  obscene  snakes  and  frogs  of  the  catacombs." 

Driven  to  consider  the  all-engrossing  subject  of  slavery  by 
the  remarks  of  others,  he  chose  his  illustrations  from  the  wealth 
of  biblical  lore  of  which  he  was  always  a  master.  Thus  from 


Speakership  Contest  273 

the  story  of  Hagar  and  the  boy  Ishmael  was  drawn  the 
prophecy  that  the  latter  would  become  the  first  great  filibus 
ter,  whose  progeny  have  gone  on  fighting  and  robbing  through 
the  ages.  The  father  of  that  boy  had  another  family  whose 
descendants  were  in  servitude  four  hundred  years.  "At  the 
end  of  that  time  God  abolished  that  servitude  and  repealed  the 
fugitive  slave  law,  very  much  to  the  dismay  and  astonishment 
of  the  pursuing  masters,  and  greatly  to  the  gratification  of 
those  owing  service  and  labor  to  them."  And  then  in  simple 
language,  grave  but  eloquent,  he  described  the  scene  on  the 
shore  of  the  Red  Sea,  made  real  by  the  warmth  of  an  Oriental 
imagination,  when  Miriam  and  all  of  the  dark-eyed  daughters 
of  the  fugitive  Hebrew  slaves  burst  into  triumphal  song  to  the 
glory  of  the  Lord.  The  illustration  suggests  the  application 
to  the  progress  of  the  human  race. 

Vallandigham  was  not  the  only  member  from  Ohio  who 
joined  the  anarchists.  S.  S.  Cox  aspired  to  distinction,  and 
he  received  attention  from  Mr.  Corwin.  Cox  had  sneered  at 
the  inhabitants  of  the  Western  Reserve  and  in  recounting  the 
proceedings  of  a  meeting  held  there  he  imitated  the  twang  of 
the  Yankees  of  that  section  of  country,  whereupon  Corwin 
commented : 

It  sounded  strange  to  you  as  it  did  to  him;  and  so  it  did  to  the 
army  of  Prince  Rupert  at  Marston  Moor,  when  the  ancestors  of  these 
men  rushed  into  battle  against  the  mailed  chivalry  and  curled  dar 
lings  of  the  court  of  Charles  I.  What  happened  then?  Something 
worthy  to  be  noted  and  not  forgotten.  Stout  Cromwell  and  his  un 
conquerable  Ironsides,  when  the  day  was  well-nigh  lost,  charged 
with  resistless  fury  upon  the  proud  columns  of  that  host  of  gentle 
men,  as  they  were  boastfully  denominated,  and  lo!  Prince  Rupert 
and  his  host  were  no  longer  there.  They  were  scattered  as  the  dry 
leaves  of  autumn  are  before  the  storm  blast  of  the  coming  winter. 
That  same  nasal  twang  rang  out  on  that  day,  their  well-known  war 
cry,  "The  sword  of  the  Lord  and  of  Gideon." 

These  Yankees  are  a  peculiar  people;  they  are  an  industrious, 
thriving,  painstaking  race  of  men.  Their  frailties  grow  out  of  their 
very  virtues,  those  stern  virtues  which  founded  liberty  in  England, 

VOL.  I.— 18. 


274  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

and  baptized  it  in  their  own  blood  upon  Bunker  Hill  in  America. 
They  will  do  so  again  if  there  is  a  necessity  for  it.  It  is  a  hard 
matter  to  deal  with  men  who  do  verily  believe  that  God  Almighty 
and  his  angels  encamp  round  about  them.  What  do  they  care  for 
earthly  things  or  earthly  power?  What  do  they  care  for  kings  and 
lords  and  presidents?  They  fully  believe  they  are  the  heirs  of  the 
King  of  kings.  In  the  hour  of  battle  they  seem  to  themselves  to 
stand,  like  the  great  Hebrew  leader,  in  the  cleft  of  the  rock;  the 
glory  of  the  most  high  God  passes  by  them,  and  they  catch  a  gleam 
of  its  brightness.  If  you  come  in  conflict  with  the  purposes  of  such 
men  they  will  regard  duty  as  everything,  life  as  nothing. 

Referring  to  the  threats  of  disunion  he  said : 

Better  for  us  would  it  be  that  the  fruitful  earth  should  be  smitten 
for  a  season  with  barrenness  and  become  dry  dust,  and  refuse  its 
annual  fruits;  better  that  the  heavens  for  a  time  should  become 
brass,  and  the  ear  of  God  deaf  to  our  prayers;  better  that  famine 
with  her  cold  and  skinny  fingers  should  lay  hold  upon  the  throats  of 
our  wives  and  children;  better  that  God  commission  the  angel  of 
destruction  to  go  forth  over  the  land,  scattering  pestilence  and 
death  from  his  dusky  wings,  than  that  we  should  prove  faithless  to 
our  trust,  and  by  that  means  our  light  should  be  quenched,  our  lib 
erties  destroyed,  and  all  our  bright  hopes  die  out  in  that  night  which 
knows  no  coming  dawn. 

And  so  the  speaker  continues  for  two  days,  taking  up  with 
out  hesitation  the  thread  of  his  argument  on  the  issues  raised 
after  each  digression  induced  by  the  interruptions,  his  audience 
as  eager  at  the  close  as  at  the  beginning.  Like  the  great  Mexi 
can  war  speech,  this  one  is  notable  for  wealth  of  illustration 
and  naturalness  of  expression.  Its  calm  and  lofty  tone  brought 
to  a  pause  the  fierce  sectional  and  party  strife  that  had  been  in 
progress  six  weeks,  broke  the  opposition,  and  opened  a  way 
for  a  settlement  without  sacrifice  of  principle  on  the  part  of  the 
majority. 

The  example  of  violence  and  intolerance  set  by  the  House 
was  speedily  followed  in  different  sections  of  the  country.  On 
the  2Oth  of  December  there  arrived  at  Cincinnati  several 


Southern  Intolerance  275 

families,  numbering  in  all  thirty-six  souls,  who  had  been 
driven  out  of  Berea,  Kentucky,  for  believing  as  the  Synod  of 
Kentucky  had  taught  that  slavery  was  sinful.  They  were 
peaceable,  industrious,  law-abiding  citizens,  but  before  their 
opinions  their  neighbors  stood  condemned,  and  in  the  conflict 
the  weaker  had  to  yield.  Confronted  by  sixty-five  armed, 
well-mounted  men  drawn  up  in  military  array,  the  Rev.  J.  R. 
Rogers,  principal  of  a  prosperous  school,  remarked  that  he 
had  not  consciously  violated  any  law  of  the  commonwealth, 
and  that  if  he  had  unconsciously  done  so  he  would  be  most 
happy  to  be  tried  according  to  law.  In  reply  he  was  informed 
that  he  had  not  violated  any  law,  but  that  his  principles  were 
incompatible  with  the  public  peace,  and  he  must  go.1  Thus 
thirty-six  men,  women,  and  children  were  driven  forth  to  seek 
homes  among  strangers.  What  a  commentary  on  the  declara 
tions  of  statesmen  that  the  systems  of  free  and  slave  labor  in  a 
territory  or  a  State  were  not  incompatible  !  Before  this  single 
act  of  intolerance  the  demand  for  equality  in  the  territories 
fell.  The  Legislature  of  Maryland,  in  authorizing  the  con 
struction  of  a  street  railroad  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  provided 
that  "no  Black  Republican,  or  indorser  of  the  Helper  book," 
should  receive  any  of  the  benefits  and  privileges  of  the  act,  or 
be  employed  in  any  capacity  by  the  railroad  company.3 

This  force  surrounded  the  President  and  he  yielded  to  it, 
approved  of  it  and  sympathized  in  its  demands.  So  did 
thousands  of  others.  Commodore  Stockton,  who  had  rendered 
his  country  honorable  service  in  other  days,  was  a  typical  rep 
resentative  of  this  class. 

I  am  for  peace  [said  he],  I  am  for  the  Union,  and  therefore  I  am 
for  concession,  if  concession  will  insure  peace.  The  North  is  in 
furiated  with  a  passionate,  almost  irreligious  fanaticism;  the  South, 

'Cincinnati  Commercial,  Dec.  21,  1859. 

2App.,  Cong,  Globe,  Feb.  21,  1860,  p.  118.  "I  want  honorable  gentlemen  upon 
this  side  of  the  House  to  know,"  said  Henry  Winter  Davis,  "  that  when  they  pass 
home  through  the  city  of  Baltimore  they  must  be  prepared  at  the  car  doors  to 
deny  their  political  principles  or  lose  the  lightning  train." 


276  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

maddened  by  the  certainty  of  the  horrible  results  which  that  fana 
ticism  threatens,  is  assuming  an  attitude  of  serious,  stern  resistance. 
To  avert  the  inevitable  progress  of  the  conflict  I  would  have  the 
North  concede  at  once,  and  promptly  and  cordially  agree:  i.  To 
recognize  as  final  and  conclusive  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

2.  Comply  faithfully  with  the  requisitions  of  the  fugitive  slave  law. 

3.  To  recognize  the  right  of  our  Southern  fellow  citizens  to  take 
their  slave  property  into  the  territories,  and  to  its  protection  there 
under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

In  return  for  this  he  would  have  the  South  "  concede  specific 
duties  "  and  a  tariff  giving  some  protection  to  the  industries 
of  the  North. 

But  the  South  were  not  prepared  to  concede  anything  —  cer 
tainly  they  would  not  surrender  the  existing  tariff  with  its  free 
list  and  low  duties  rendered  still  less  onerous  under  an  ad 
valorem  system  which  admitted  of  under-valuations.  They 
were  contending  for  constitutional  rights.  If  they  were  en 
titled  to  have  their  property  protected,  they  wanted  the  North 
to  respect  that  right ;  if  they  were  not,  they  should  make  no 
such  demand.  They  would  not  barter.  Standing  upon  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case  they 
now  declared  it  to  be  "the  duty  of  the  law-making  power, 
wherever  lodged  and  by  whomsoever  exercised,  whether  by 
the  Congress  or  the  territorial  Legislatures,"  1  to  provide  a 
slave  code  for  the  territories  for  the  protection  of  their  prop 
erty.  This  was  the  perfect  fruit  of  the  tree  planted  by  Cal- 
houn.  The  power  of  Congress  herein  recognized  by  the 
Southern  extremists,  the  Republicans  held,  ought  to  be  so 
exercised  as  to  encourage  and  protect  free  labor  in  the  ter 
ritories8 —  the  perfect  fruit  of  the  tree  of  Freedom.  The 
debate  of  1860  was  upon  these  two  radically  differing  propo 
sitions  and  the  non-interference  policy  of  Senator  Douglas 

1  Resolutions  introduced  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  by  Mr.  Brown  of 
Mississippi.     This  slave  proposition  met  the  opposition  of  the  Columbia  South 
Carolinian.     Jeff.  Davis  did  not  consider  it  of  importance.      Cong.  Globe,  p.  lOOi. 

2  Amendment    to    the   Brown    resolutions   proposed   by  Senator   Wilkinson  of 
Minnesota.     Cong.  Globe,  ist  Sess.,  Thirty-sixth  Cong.,  March,  1860. 


Southern  Intolerance  277 

which    had    encountered    the   deadly    opposition    of    the  ad 
ministration.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  had  undertaken  to  crush  Mr.  Douglas  and  the 
attempt  had  brought  the  party  to  irretrievable  ruin,  while  he 
himself,  as  will  be  seen,  became  an  object  of  persecution.  The 
fate  that  had  overtaken  the  Whig  party  had  at  last  overtaken 
the  Democratic, —  the  division  was  sectional  and  permanent. 
The  Democrats  of  the  North  were  now  spoken  of  in  the  South 
as  "the  anti-slavery  Democracy,"  and  their  great  leader  as  "a 
traitor  to  those  principles  which  secure  the  South"-  -"danger 
ous  and  designing,  let  him  be  anathema  maranatha" 

We  repudiate  the  whole  scheme  [said  the  most  conspicuous  tri 
bune  3  of  the  South  in  advance  of  the  Charleston  convention] — we 
repudiate  the  whole  scheme  by  which  it  is  sought  to  tie  our  hands 
and  encircle  us  as  with  the  folds  of  a  snake,  to  crush  out  or  smother 
the  vital  power  of  our  civilization.  .  .  .  Finally  we  shall  sustain 
no  man  of  whatever  party  who  shall  stand  upon  the  platform  of 

1  In   an   elaborate    article   in    Harper's   Magazine,    September,    1859,    Senator 
Douglas  divided  Democrats  into  three  classes,  as  follows  :     ' '  First :  Those  who 
believe  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  neither  establishes  nor  prohibits 
slavery  in  the  States  or  territories  beyond  the  power  of  the  people  legally  to  con 
trol  it,  but  leaves  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their 
domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,   subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United   States.     Second  :    Those  who  believe  that   the  Constitution    establishes 
slavery  in  the  territories  and  withholds  from  Congress  and  the  territorial  Legisla 
ture  the  power  to  control  it  ;  and  who  insist  that  in  the  event  the  territorial  Legisla 
ture  fails  to  enact  the  requisite  laws  for  its  protection,  it  becomes  the  imperative 
duty  of  Congress  to  interpose  its  authority  and  furnish  such  protection.     Third  : 
Those  who,  while  professing  to  believe  that  the  Constitution  establishes  slavery  in 
the  territories  beyond  the  power  of  Congress  or  the  territorial  Legislature  to  con 
trol  it,  at  the  same  time  protest  against  the  duty  of  Congress  to  interfere  in  its 
protection  ;  but  insist  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  judiciary  to  protect  and  maintain 
slavery  in  the  territories  without  any  law  upon  the  subject."     In  other  words,  that 
slavery  was  protected  by  the  common  law.     Senator  Benjamin  made  a  learned 
argument  on  this  proposition.     Horace  Greeley  requested  the  privilege  of  review 
ing  Senator  Douglas's  article,  but  the  editor  of  Harper's  Magazine  refused  to  give 
him  access  to  its  pages. 

2  Charleston  Mercury,  June  16,  1859. 


278  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Douglas's  principles,  though  he  should  be  nominated  by  twenty 
Democratic  conventions, — 

a  promise  often  repeated  and  finally  made  good.  The  South 
had  interpreted  the  Cincinnati  platform  to  mean  "The  qualified 
right  of  the  people  of  the  slaveholding  States  to  the  protection 
of  their  property  in  the  States,  in  the  territories,  and  in  the 
unorganized  wilderness,"1  which  made  the  federal  govern 
ment  the  ''rightful  and  legitimate  protector  of  the  common 
rights  of  all  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  in  other  States 
and  territories."2  This  duty,  however,  was  limited  to  the 
protection  of  property:  the  federal  government  might  not 
prohibit  slavery — might  not  interpose  to  protect  the  citizens  of 
Berea  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  homes,  their  liberty,  the  free 
dom  of  opinion  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution !  "If  we  can 
not  get  this  protection  in  the  Union,"  said  the  Southern  press, 
"we  should  seek  it  out  of  the  Union."  3 

Throughout  the  winter  months  these  differences  had  occu 
pied  Congress.  Those  friends  and  neighbors  of  Mr.  Buchanan 
who  had  stood  his  guarantors  in  the  campaign  of  1856,  pledg 
ing  him  to  fair  dealing,  had  impeached  him  morally,  and  later 
sought  evidence  through  investigating  committees  of  the 
House  upon  which  to  found  a  legal  impeachment.*  The 
slavery  question  obtruded  itself  in  every  debate,  in  almost 

1  Proceedings  of  the  Democratic  convention  at  Montgomery  in  1856. 

2  Huntsville  Democrat,  June  8,  1859. 

3  Ibid.     This  was  the  position  held  by  most  of  the  Southern  newspapers. 

4  The  biographer  of  Mr.  Buchanan  claims — and  the  sequel  of  the  investigation 
would  seem  to  warrant  his  conclusion — that  the  work  cut  out  for  the  Covode  com 
mittee  was  to  secure  evidence  charging  the  administration  with  corrupt  practices 
with  a  view  to  influence  the  action  of  the  voters  in  the  campaign  of  1860.     It 
was  believed  at  the  time,  however,   and  indeed  it  was  promised,  that  evidence 
would  be  produced  on  which  to  impeach  the  President  before  the  Senate.     Dem 
ocrats  formerly  in  the  confidence  of  Mr.   Buchanan  were  the  authors  of  this  pro 
ceeding.     In  the  House  on  the  5th  of  March,  1860,  Mr.  Covode  of  Pennsylvania, 
moved  the  appointment  of  a  committee  of  five  members  to  inquire  whether  the 
President  or  any  officer  of  the  government,  by  money,  patronage  or  other  im 
proper  means,  had  sought  to  influence  legislation  ;  and  also  whether  any  officer, 
by  combination  or  otherwise,  had  prevented  or  defeated,  or  attempted  to  prevent 
or  defeat,  the  execution  of  any  law  upon  the  statute  book,  and  whether  the  Presi- 


The  Davis  Resolutions  279 

every  attempt  at  legislation,  and  members  became  so  excited 
by  the  middle  of  April  that  a  Senator  declared  that  unless  the 
slavery  question  could  be  wholly  eliminated  from  politics,  the 
government  was  not  worth  two  years',  perhaps  not  two 
months',  purchase.  "So  far  as  I  know,  and  as  I  believe,  every 
man  in  both  Houses  is  armed  with  a  revolver — some  with  two 
—and  a  bowie-knife.  It  is,  I  fear,  in  the  power  of  any  Red 
or  Black  Republican  to  precipitate  at  any  moment  a  collision 
in  which  the  slaughter  would  be  such  as  to  shake  the  world 
and  dissolve  the  government."  With  men  in  such  mood,  and 
while  such  scenes  were  enacting  at  the  Capitol,  the  national 
conventions  of  the  various  political  parties  met. 

On  the  2d  of  February,  Jefferson  Davis  submitted  in  the 
Senate  a  series  of  resolutions,  embodying  the  constitutional 
doctrine  contended  for  by  the  dominant  party  in  the  South, 
which  have  an  historical  importance  as  showing  precisely  the 
ground  on  which  Southern  delegates  withdrew  from  the 
Charleston  convention  and  justified  the  action  of  their  States 
at  a  subsequent  period  of  the  political  revolution  already  in 
progress  in  1860.  It  was  declared— First :  That  the  federal 
Constitution  was  adopted  by  the  States  as  free  and  indepen 
dent  sovereignties,  delegating  a  portion  of  their  powers  to  be 
exercised  by  the  federal  government  for  the  increased  security 
of  each  against  dangers,  domestic  as  well  as  foreign ;  and  that 
any  intermeddling  by  one  State,  or  any  citizens  of  the  same, 
with  the  domestic  institutions  of  another,  on  any  pretext 
whatever,  political,  moral  or  religious,  was  a  violation  of  the 
Constitution,  whose  tendency  was  to  destroy  the  Union. 
Second :  That  negro  slavery  was  recognized  by  the  Constitu 
tion  as  constituting  an  important  element  in  the  apportionment 
of  powers  among  the  States,  and  that  no  change  of  opinion  or 

dent  had  failed  or  refused  to  compel  the  execution  of  any  laws  thereof.  The 
resolution  was  adopted  and  a  committee  appointed  with  Mr.  Covode  as  chairman. 
Other  resolutions  were  introduced,  but  interest  centres  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
Covode  committee.  The  investigation  was  in  secret,  and  in  time  a  mass  of  ex 
parte  evidence  was  given  to  the  country,  but  no  impeachment  was  attempted. 
Pending  the  proceedings,  Mr.  Buchanan  sent  two  special  messages  to  the  House 
protesting  against  the  action  and  arguing  the  constitutional  question  involved. 


280  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

feeling  on  the  part  of  the  non-slaveholding  States  could  justify 
them  in  open  or  covert  attacks  on  the  institution  of  slavery. 
Third :  The  Union  being  formed  on  an  equality  of  rights,  it 
was  especially  the  duty  of  the  Senate,  which  represents  the 
States  in  their  sovereign  capacity,  to  resist  all  attempts  to  dis 
criminate  either  in  relation  to  persons  or  property  in  the  terri 
tories,  the  common  possession  of  the  United  States.  Fourth  : 
That  neither  Congress  nor  a  territorial  Legislature,  possessed 
power  to  annul  or  impair  the  constitutional  right  of  any  citi 
zen  of  the  United  States  to  take  his  slave  property  into  the 
common  territories,  and  there  hold  and  enjoy  the  same  while 
the  territorial  condition  remained.  Fifth:  The  judiciary  and 
executive  authority  proving  inadequate  to  the  protection  of 
constitutional  rights,  and  the  territorial  government  failing  or 
refusing  to  do  so,  it  would  then  become  the  duty  of  Congress 
to  supply  such  deficiency  within  the  limits  of  its  constitutional 
powers.  Sixth :  On  proceeding  to  form  a  constitution  to  be 
admitted  as  a  State  into  the  Union,  the  inhabitants  of  a  ter 
ritory  might  then  for  the  first  time  decide  for  themselves 
whether  slavery  as  a  domestic  institution  should  be  maintained 
or  prohibited  within  their  jurisdiction.  Seventh :  That  all  acts 
of  individuals  or  of  State  Legislatures  to  nullify  the  clause  in 
the  Constitution  for  the  rendition  of  fugitives  or  the  fugitive 
laws  were  subversive  of  the  Constitution  and  revolutionary  in 
their  effects. 

With  this  platform  the  delegates  from  the  Southern  States 
entered  the  Democratic  National  Convention  which  assembled 
at  Charleston  the  23d  of  April,  and  refused  to  abate  one  jot  of 
principle.  With  the  exception  of  the  seventh  clause  relating 
to  the  nullifying  acts  of  some  of  the  free  States,  the  Douglas 
Democrats  could  not,  without  inviting  destruction  for  them 
selves,  accept  this  Southern  interpretation  of  the  Constitution, 
though  willing  to  reaffirm  the  Cincinnati  platform  of  1856, 
which  admitted,  as  we  have  seen,  of  different  interpretations. 
But  Southern  policy  had  progressed  to  the  final  stage  of  an 
unqualified  acceptance  of  the  Calhoun  theory  by  the  whole 
country  with  the  alternative  of  a  dissolution  of  the  Union. 


The  Charleston  Convention  Fiasco        281 

The  dilemma  in  which  the  Northern  Democrats  would  be 
placed  was  known  to  Mr.  Davis  and  other  extremists  in  his 
confidence,  who  were  preparing  the  way  for  a  new  confedera 
tion,  when  he  laid  his  propositions  before  the  Senate.  That 
the  purpose  in  transferring  the  scene  of  action  to  Charleston 
was  to  drive  Douglas  from  the  field  scarcely  admits  of  a  doubt. 
The  fifteen  slave  States  and  California  and  Oregon  gave  to  the 
extremists  control  of  the  Committee  on  Resolutions,  but  they 
failed  to  get  control  of  the  convention.  The  administration, 
through  office-holders  in  several  of  the  Northern  States  had 
succeeded  in  sending  contesting  delegations  to  the  conven 
tion,  but  Douglas's  friends  controlled  the  National  Committee 
and  the  Committee  on  Credentials,  and  the  regular  delegates 
were  seated.  The  days  consumed  in  discussion  and  in  confer 
ring  over  plans  of  adjustment  only  served  to  intensify  the 
passions  of  members.  The  Southerners  were  unyielding, 
domineering,  with  a  single  purpose  in  view,  and  they  drove 
straight  for  their  goal.  The  crisis  was  reached  on  the  3Oth, 
when  the  convention  by  a  vote  of  165  to  138  substituted  the 
minority  platform  for  the  Davis  propositions  which  had  been 
reported  by  the  majority.  Thereupon  the  delegates  from  the 
Gulf  States  and  Arkansas,  refusing  to  abide  by  the  action  of 
the  convention,  withdrew  and  were  joined  by  a  few  individuals 
from  other  States.  The  party  had  come  to  the  forks  of  the 
road  and  division  followed.  This  result,  which  had  been 
clearly  foreseen,  was  accepted  by  the  Southern  leaders  with 
thinly  veiled  manifestations  of  satisfaction. 

The  resolutions  which  had  been  substituted  for  those  re 
ported  by  the  majority  of  the  committee  evaded  the  real  issue 
and  were  contemned  for  their  lack  of  principle.  They  re 
affirmed  the  Cincinnati  platform,  pledged  the  Democracy  to 
defer  all  questions  relating  to  the  rights  of  property  to  settle 
ment  by  the  Supreme  Court,  declared  in  favor  of  a  railroad  to 
the  Pacific,  in  favor  of  the  acquisition  of  the  island  of  Cuba, 
and  condemned  the  personal  liberty  laws  of  the  Northern 
States.  The  personality  of  Douglas  became  the  fighting  plat 
form.  After  taking  fifty-seven  ballots  for  President  without 


282  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

overcoming  the  obstacle  presented  by  the  customary  two- 
thirds  rule,  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  convention  a  resolution 
was  adopted  to  adjourn  to  meet  in  Baltimore  on  the  i8th  of 
June,  and  to  recommend  to  Democrats  to  fill  the  vacancies 
made  by  the  withdrawal  of  delegates.  The  seceders  who  had 
met  in  another  hall,  with  Senator  James  A.  Bayard  of  Dela 
ware  in  the  chair,  adjourned  to  meet  in  Richmond  on  the 
nth  of  June. 

It  is  worthy  of  note,  as  evidence  of  the  extent  to  which 
Democratic  leaders  were  committed  to  the  new  dogma,  that, 
in  the  interim  between  the  adjournment  of  the  Charleston  con 
ventions  and  their  re-assembling  at  Baltimore,  the  resolutions 
of  Mr.  Davis  were  adopted  seriatim  by  a  decided  majority  of 
the  Senate,  both  Northern  and  Southern  Democrats  sustain 
ing  them  unitedly,  with  the  exception  of  Mr.  Pugh.1  Mr. 
Douglas  was  absent.  Thus  the  party,  to  the  extent  the  Senate 
had  the  power,  was  committed  to  the  doctrine  of  the  ultraists 
as  set  forth  in  the  fourth,  fifth  and  sixth  propositions  of  Mr. 
Davis.  And  yet  when  the  South  asked  the  Northern  Demo 
crats  in  national  convention  to  declare  that  the  right  to  hold 
slaves  in  the  territories  could  not  be  "  destroyed  or  impaired 
by  Congressional  or  territorial  legislation,"  and  that  when 
necessary  it  was  the  duty  of  the  federal  government  to  pro 
tect  slave  property  in  the  territories,  they  refused.  Whatever 
Senators  might  consent  to,  delegates  elected  in  district  and 
State  conventions  refused  to  repudiate  the  doctrine  of  popular 
sovereignty  which  but  a  few  years  before  had  been  accepted 
as  party  doctrine — particularly  the  doctrine  of  the  South. 

The  Richmond  convention,  after  assembling,  adjourned  to 
meet  in  Baltimore  on  the  same  day  as  the  regular  convention. 
Under  pressure  from  the  friends  of  Mr.  Buchanan  the  seceders 
had  been  induced  to  take  this  course  and  attempt  to  get  con 
trol  of  the  convention.  They  were  favored  by  Caleb  Cush- 
ing,  the  permanent  chairman  of  the  regular  convention,  but 
the  friends  of  Mr.  Douglas  would  not  consent  to  the  re-admis 
sion  of  the  seceders  where  other  delegates,  as  in  the  case  of 

1  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government,  vol.  i.,  p.  44. 


The  Baltimore  Conventions  283 

Louisiana,  had  been  elected  in  the  interim  to  fill  the  seats  they 
had  vacated.  After  five  days  spent  in  conferences,  the 
seceders  failing  to  secure  admission  for  all  to  the  regular  con 
vention  assembled  in  the  Front  Street  Theatre,  organized  a 
new  convention  at  the  Maryland  Institute,  where  they  were 
joined  by  Caleb  Gushing  and  other  Massachusetts  delegates. 
They  adopted  the  Davis  platform  and  nominated  a  ticket  — 
John  C.  Breckinridge  of  Kentucky  for  President  and  Joseph 
Lane  of  Oregon  for  Vice-President.  David  Tod  of  Ohio 
took  the  chair  in  the  regular  convention,  made  vacant  by  the 
withdrawal  of  Caleb  Cushing,  and  the  work  of  that  body 
was  completed  without  further  interruption.  The  nomination 
of  Mr.  Douglas,  now  inevitable,  was  received  with  great 
enthusiasm.  The  second  place  was  given  to  Benjamin  Fitz- 
patrick  of  Alabama  but  on  his  declining  Herschel  V.  John 
son  of  Georgia  was  substituted  in  his  place. 

The  nomination  of  the  Illinois  Senator  fell  under  the  con 
demnation  of  Franklin  Pierce,  who  pronounced  it  a  sectional 
one  1 ;  to  which  Senator  Pugh  forcibly  and  truthfully  replied 
that  the  convention  at  the  Maryland  Institute  was  as  purely 
sectional  as  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention,  and  in  proof 
he  cited  the  fact  that  there  were  fourteen  States  from  which 
there  was  either  no  delegate  at  all,  or  no  delegate  who  pre 
tended  to  represent  the  will  of  his  people.  Mr.  Douglas  had 
twice  withdrawn  his  name  to  promote  harmony  in  the  party — 
once  in  favor  of  Pierce,  and  again  in  favor  of  Buchanan,  and 
had  been  rewarded  with  the  ingratitude  and  bitter  animosity 
of  both,  at  the  instigation,  it  would  seem,  of  the  extreme  men 
of  the  South.  And  yet  his  doctrine  of  non-intervention  had 
for  some  time  been  recognized  and  acted  upon  as  the  settled 
doctrine  of  the  South.  It  was  proposed  now  to  abandon  this 
and  demand  Congressional  intervention  for  the  protection  of 
slavery  in  the  territories  as  a  condition  of  the  South  remain 
ing  longer  in  the  Union.3  This  was  the  rugged  issue  within 

1  At  Concord,  June  25th. 

9  Letter  of  Alexander  H.  Stephens  in  reply  to  a  committee  of  Macon  citizens. 
Life,  p.  357- 


284  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

the  Democratic  party.  What  the  end  would  be  was  described 
by  Mr.  Stephens  in  an  interview  with  his  biographer  after  the 
adjournment  of  the  Charleston  convention : 

Mr.  J. — "What  do  you  think  of  matters  now?  " 

Mr.  S. — "Think  of  them?  Why,  that  men  will  be  cutting  one 
another's  throats  in  a  little  while.  In  less  than  twelve  months  we 
shall  be  in  a  war,  and  that  the  bloodiest  in  history.  Men  seem  to 
be  utterly  blinded  to  the  future.  You  remember  my  reading  to  you 
a  letter  which  I  wrote  to  a  gentleman  in  Texas  asking  the  use  of 
my  name  in  his  State  as  a  candidate  for  the  presidency?  " 

Mr.  J. — "The  one  in  which  you  said  that  we  should  make  the 
Charleston  convention  a  Marathon  or  a  Waterloo?  " 

Mr.  S. — "Yes.     Well,  we  have  made  it  a  Waterloo." 

Mr.  J. — "But  why  must  we  have  civil  war,  even  if  the  Republican 
candidate  should  be  elected?  " 

Mr.  S. — "Because  there  are  not  virtue  and  patriotism  and  sense 
enough  left  in  the  country  to  avoid  it.  Mark  me,  when  I  repeat 
that  in  less  than  twelve  months  we  shall  be  in  the  midst  of  a  bloody 
war.  What  is  to  become  of  us  then  God  only  knows.  The  Union 
will  certainly  be  disrupted;  and  what  will  make  it  so  disastrous  is 
the  way  in  which  it  will  be  done.  The  Southern  people  are  not 
unanimous  now,  and  will  not  be,  on  the  question  of  secession.  The 
Republican  nominee  will  be  elected.  Then  South  Carolina  will 
secede.  For  me,  I  should  be  content  to  let  her  have  her  own  way, 
and  go  out  alone.  But  the  Gulf  States  will  follow  her  example. 
The-people  are  by  no  means  unanimous;  but  the  majorities  will  fol 
low  her.  After  that  the  border  States  will  hesitate,  and  this  hesita 
tion  will  encourage  the  North  to  make  war  upon  us.  If  the  South 
would  unanimously  and  simultaneously  go  out  of  the  Union  we  could 
make  a  very  strong  government.  But  even  then,  if  there  were  only 
Slave  States  in  the  new  confederacy,  we  should  be  known  as  the 
Black  Republic,  and  be  without  the  sympathy  of  the  world."  ' 

Fittingly  the  National  Committee  of  the  Republican  party 
had  selected  a  city  within  the  territory  dedicated  to  freedom 
by  the  immortal  Ordinance  of  1787  in  which  to  hold  the  presi- 

1  Life,  p.  355- 


Nomination  of  Lincoln  285 

dential  convention  of  the  new  party  in  1860.  Chicago  was 
already  the  centre  of  the  section  within  which  there  was  the 
greatest  activity  in  material  and  political  development ;  hither 
came  the  intelligent  and  enterprising  young  men  of  the  Atlan 
tic  States,  and  the  industrious  and  liberty-loving  Germans  and 
Scandinavians,  seeking  opportunity  to  make  homes  with  their 
own  labor  and  skill;  and  here  rather  than  elsewhere  must  the 
new  party  lay  foundations  upon  which  to  build  for  the  future. 
The  assembling  of  the  convention  had  been  looked  forward  to 
with  keen  interest,  as  it  was  believed  that  it  would  name  the 
next  President,  if  a  prudent  choice  should  be  made.  Great 
anxiety  on  this  point  was  widely  manifested.  For  months 
prior  to  the  meeting  of  any  of  the  State  conventions,  there  had 
been  an  interchange  of  views  among  leading  men  in  all  parts 
of  the  country.  It  was  known  that  Mr.  Seward  and  Mr. 
Chase,  the  two  most  conspicuous  leaders  of  the  new  party, 
would  be  candidates  before  the  convention,  and  the  question 
first  asked  by  the  uncommitted  was,  "Can  either  of  them  carry 
enough  of  the  doubtful  States  to  win?"  The  doubtful  States 
were  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Indiana  and  Illinois.  Penn 
sylvania  and  Indiana  were  known  as  October  States,  and  if  the 
Republicans  could  elect  State  officers  in  them  as  well  as  in 
Ohio  in  October,  the  battle  would  be  won,  and  the  question 
left  for  November  in  other  Northern  States  would  be  merely 
one  of  majorities.  The  element  of  success,  therefore,  entered 
into  every  calculation  and  in  deference  to  it  individual  prefer 
ences  were  expected  to  be  sacrificed. 

This  was  stigmatized  by  some  as  cowardly,  as  a  desertion  of 
the  ablest  and  noblest  exponents  of  the  principles  of  the  party 
in  deference  to  halting  conservatism.  But  causes,  was  the  re 
ply,  are  of  greater  worth  than  men.  "If  a  prejudice  which 
will  defeat  one  man  may  be  avoided  by  another  who  will  main 
tain  the  same  policy,  is  it  cowardice  to  save  our  cause  by  sac 
rificing  the  man? "  asked  the  Indianapolis  Journal?  which  was 
certain  that  neither  Mr.  Seward  nor  Mr.  Chase  could  carry  In 
diana,  and  sure  that  either  Judge  McLean  or  Mr.  Lincoln 

1  April  19,  1860. 


286  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

could.  So  pronounced  a  Republican  as  Henry  Wilson  thought 
favorably  of  General  Scott,  whose  name  was  also  mentioned 
by  Union  men. 

The  effort  to  find  a  candidate  who  could  surely  carry  the 
doubtful  States  was  not  confined  to  men  who  were  known  as 
Republicans.  Many  conservatives,  especially  in  the  border 
States,  were  anxious  that  the  Chicago  convention  should 
select  a  man  on  whom  the  Union  men  could  unite,  and  John 
J.  Crittenden  of  Kentucky,  Edward  Bates  of  Missouri  and 
Justice  John  McLean  were  most  frequently  mentioned  as 
available  for  this  purpose.1  To  promote  this  consolidation  of 
parties  and  render  sure  the  defeat  of  the  Democracy,  a  third 
party  was  deprecated  as  being  likely  to  strengthen  the  latter. 
An  interesting  letter  of  an  eminent  Kentuckian  2  is  preserved 
which  has  an  historical  value  as  showing  the  light  in  which 
Republican  doctrine  was  viewed  at  that  time  by  a  class  of 
Southern  conservatives. 

I  infer  [the  writer  says  addressing  his  friend],  that  you  prefer  a 
Democratic  President  to  a  Republican.  I  don't.  But  let  that  pass. 
Our  true  position  is  to  favor  neither.  Your  convention  will  not  only 
favor  but  insure  the  success  of  the  Democrats.  It  is  a  long  fare 
well  to  conservatism  and  a  fast  gallop  to  perdition.  With  its  spoils, 
the  six  hundred  thousand  votes  and  the  enhanced  prestige  of  invin 
cibility,  they  will  become  really  invincible.  The  only  alternative  is 
that  their  pertinacious  agitation  of  the  slave  propaganda  shall  widen 
the  split  until  the  North  becomes  equally  sectionalized  with  the 
South,  the  necessary  result  being  disunion  with  the  assent  of  both 
sections. 

The  writer  then  proceeds  to  show  that  a  third  candidate  would 
inevitably  elect  a  Democrat.  The  one  hundred  and  twenty 
Southern  votes  would  certainly  go  to  the  candidate  of  the 
Democratic  party,  requiring  only  thirty-four  votes  more  to  be 
obtained  in  the  North  to  elect.  Half  of  the  Fillmore  votes  of 

1  See  correspondence  in  Coleman's  Life  of  Crittenden,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  182-187. 

2  Judge  S.  S.  Nicholas,  to  John  J.  Crittenden,  April  3,  1860.     MS. 


Nomination  of  Lincoln  287 

1856,  added  to  the  number  Buchanan  received,  would  defeat 
the  Republicans  in  Pennsylvania.  The  seven  votes  of  New 
Jersey,  or  the  votes  of  California  and  Oregon,  added  to  the 
twenty-seven  of  the  Keystone  State,  would  insure  Democratic 
success.  There  was  but  one  way  to  prevent  this  result.  Let 
the  convention  of  the  third  party  nominate  a  man  of  such  a 
fair  and  honorable  record  as  would  compel  the  Republicans  to 
adopt  him. 

The  writer  believed  Judge  McLean  possessed  all  of  the  ele 
ments  of  strength  to  compel  such  a  combination  of  the  oppo 
sition  parties.  The  third  party  by  nominating  him  would  save 
itself  from  disastrous  defeat  and  benefit  the  nation.  The  Re 
publicans  would  be  afraid  to  refuse  him,  lest  they  should  lose 
Ohio,  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey.  Let  Judge  McLean  re 
main  silent  until  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Republican 
convention.  The  leaders  of  that  party  might  not  be  able  to 
get  the  Chicago  convention  to  adopt  him  blind.  In  that  case 
a  letter  from  Judge  McLean  in  the  hands  of  a  discreet  man  like 
Seward,  to  be  used  only  as  the  last  resort,  could  be  made  effec 
tive  if  expressed  after  this  manner: 

I  certainly  shall  do  nothing  to  aid  the  slave  propaganda,  or  to 
promote  the  spread  of  slavery.  It  would  be  desirable  to  return,  if 
we  could,  to  the  ancient  policy  of  the  government  of  sixty  years' 
duration;  that  is,  to  permit  and  protect  slavery  in  suitable  climate, 
such  as  south  of  36°  30',  and  to  prohibit  north  of  that  line  of  lati 
tude.  But  the  unfortunate  Dred  Scott  decision  having  presented 
an  apparent  barrier  to  express  prohibition  without  intense  national 
excitement,  that  much  of  the  old  policy  may  be  waived  for  the  sake 
of  national  peace.  The  North  can  the  more  readily  acquiesce  in 
this,  because  actual  legal  prohibition  is  not  at  all  necessary  to  pre 
vent  the  spread  of  slavery  into  any  territory  we  now  have  or  are 
likely  to  have  for  the  next  ten  or  twenty  years.  The  laws  of  climate 
and  trade  afford  the  most  reliable  and  inexorable  prohibition.  By 
merely  abstaining  from  unnecessary  and  unfruitful  action,  the  peace 
and  harmony  of  the  nation  can  be  restored  without  the  surrender  of 
any  right  or  power  by  the  North,  or  the  slightest  peril  to  any  of  its 
sectional  interests  or  prejudices. 


288  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

The  writer  added  an  expression  of  his  conviction  that  such  a 
letter  would  give  Judge  McLean  great  weight  with  conserva 
tives  everywhere, 

by  showing  that  he  would  not  compromise  principle  for  the  sake  of 
the  Chicago  nomination.  Should  the  Republicans  accept  him  in 
the  face  of  such  a  letter  his  election  would  be  perfectly  certain,  for 
he  would  carry  every  Northern  State,  and  we  should  have  some 
chance  in  three  or  four  Southern  States. 

Division  in  the  counsels  of  conservative  men  led  to  the  hold 
ing  of  a  third-party  convention  with  the  result  noted  below,  to 
the  abandonment  of  Justice  McLean,  and  to  a  feeble  effort  to 
bring  forward  Mr.  Bates  at  Chicago.  On  May  I4th,  two  days 
before  the  convention  met,  F.  P.  Blair,  Jr.,  Horace  Greeley, 
John  D.  Defrees  and  others  issued  an  address  from  Chicago, 
recommending  the  nomination  of  Edward  Bates  of  Missouri,  a 
theoretical  and  practical  emancipationist,  a  life-long  resident 
of  a  slave  State,  and  a  conspicuous  Whig.  It  was  believed 
that  his  selection  would  be  "a  signal  and  final  refutation  of  the 
charge  of  sectionalism,  so  unfairly  yet  so  effectively  urged 
against  the  Republican  party,  and  would  render  fire-eating 
threats  of  disunion  probably  futile  and  a  Republican  triumph 
certain  ";  it  would  nearly  dissolve  the  organization  which  had 
presented  to  the  nation  the  respectable  names  of  John  Bell 
and  Edward  Everett,  and  bring  about  a  hearty  co-operation 
of  "  Americans,"  "Old  Line  Whigs,"  and  "Union  "  men  with 
Republicans  in  rescuing  the  country  from  the  hands  into 
which  it  had  been  permitted  to  fall.  This  suggestion  was 
coldly  received,  as  the  Germans  outside  of  Missouri  and  the 
young  men  who  gave  life  and  enthusiasm  to  the  new  party 
were  opposed  to  respectable  fossils.  New  elements  had  come 
to  the  fore,  and  old  prejudices  and  theories  were  to  be  ignored. 
"Let  the  dead  past  bury  its  dead!  "  was  the  cry.  The  Ger 
mans  in  conference  on  the  I5th  gave  voice  to  this  feeling: 
They  invited  the  national  convention  to  condemn  Know- 
Nothingism;  to  declare  in  favor  of  the  homestead  bill  as  it 
passed  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  to  give  the  anti- 


Nomination  of  Lincoln  289 

slavery  plank  of  the  platform  the  most  progressive  interpreta 
tion.  They  were  represented  on  the  floor  of  the  national 
convention  by  two  young  orators  of  fascinating  powers — Carl 
Schurz,  who  headed  the  Wisconsin  delegation  in  favor  of  Mr. 
Seward,  and  Frederick  Hassaurek,  of  Cincinnati,  who  believed 
Mr.  Chase  to  be  the  most  progressive  statesman  of  the  day. 

Mr.  Lincoln  held  to  doctrine  as  advanced  as  Mr.  Seward's, 
but  he  was  not  a  conspicuous  figure,  and  was  considered  avail 
able  merely  as  a  compromise  candidate.  Mr.  Seward's  "irre 
pressible  conflict"  filled  the  minds  of  many  with  apprehension, 
but,  unlike  the  mysterious  writing  on  the  wall  in  the  last  days 
of  Belshazzar,  it  needed  no  Daniel  to  interpret  its  meaning. 
Its  truth  was  understood,  but  for  the  head  of  the  statesman  who 
uttered  the  words  a  reward  of  $50,000  had  been  offered,  and 
throughout  the  debate  during  the  first  session  of  the  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  he  was  the  one  conspicuous  object  of  attack. 
It  was  openly  declared  in  his  presence  that  his  election  to  the 
presidency  would  justify  secession.  And  yet  Mr.  Seward  was 
by  nature  a  conservative,  and  was  opposed  to  any  action  that 
would  disturb  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  States,  or  en 
danger  the  peace  and  security  of  the  society  sustaining  it. 
More  broad-minded,  more  philosophical  than  any  of  his  con 
temporaries,  he  discussed  principles  with  a  calm  and  even  tem 
per  as  rare  as  it  is  admirable.  He  was  "the  brightest  and 
most  shining  light  of  that  political  generation,"  :  and  won  to 
himself  the  loyal  and  enthusiastic  support  of  men.  In  mid 
winter  he  spoke  on  the  state  of  the  country  to  an  audience  in 
the  Senate  that  filled  every  available  spot  in  the  galleries  and 
the  lobbies,  and  was  listened  to  with  respectful  attention  by 
those  who  had  referred  to  him  in  terms  of  bitterness,  and  his 
printed  speech  was  eagerly  read  by  millions  of  his  fellow  coun 
trymen  as  the  message  of  one  who  was  certain  to  lead  a  great 
party  to  victory. 

Ohio  did  not  support  Mr.  Chase  with  the  unanimity  and  cor 
diality  he  so  well  deserved.  His  ability,  his  upright  character, 
his  capacity  for  usefulness,  were  acknowledged,  but  he  had  been 

1  The  language  of  Governor  John  A.  Andrew  of  Massachusetts. 

VOL.    I. — 19. 


290  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

a  Democrat,  and  the  Republican  party  of  the  State  was  prin 
cipally  recruited  from  the  Whigs,  who  were  not  disposed  to 
forget  past  differences  or  to  overlook  the  claims  of  Corwin, 
McLean,  Ewing  and  Wade.  The  Cincinnati  Gazette^  the 
oldest  and  most  influential  party  journal  in  the  West,  was  the 
exponent  of  this  sentiment,  and  it  succeeded  in  preventing 
the  State  convention  from  instructing  the  delegation  for  Mr. 
Chase.  Without  his  own  State  united,  with  a  respectable 
minority  of  able  men  deep  in  the  counsels  of  the  opposition, 
it  was  impossible  to  attract  any  considerable  support  from 
other  States. 

Great  preparations  had  been  made  by  the  citizens  of  Chicago 
for  this  convention,  the  first  of  a  series  of  brilliant  assemblies 
held  in  that  city  in  recognition  of  the  indomitable  spirit  of  en 
terprise  and  power  of  the  Northwest.  A  huge  structure  called 
"The  Wigwam"  had  been  erected  and  appropriately  decorated 
for  this  occasion,  and  when  Edwin  D.  Morgan  of  New  York 
called  the  convention  to  order  on  May  i6th,  the  floor  and  gal 
leries  presented  an  animated  scene.  The  eight  or  ten  thou 
sand  people  present  were  representatives  of  all  that  is  best  in 
free-labor  civilization — of  the  energy  and  thrift,  the  high  pur 
pose  and  culture  of  society  founded  upon  democratic  princi 
ples.  The  business  was  conducted  in  the  most  orderly  manner. 
There  was  no  unseemly  wrangling,  no  displays  of  personal  ani 
mosity  as  at  Charleston,  but  an  exhibition  of  cordial  fellowship 
in  an  effort  to  bring  the  proceedings  to  a  successful  conclusion. 
The  spectators  indulged  in  appreciative  manifestations,  thus 
contributing  to  the  general  good-feeling.  George  Ashmun  of 
Massachusetts  was  made  permanent  president  of  the  conven 
tion,  and  Judge  Jessup  of  Pennsylvania,  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Resolutions.  When  the  latter  reported  the 
platform,  Mr.  Giddings  moved  to  amend  the  first  resolution 
so  as  to  incorporate  an  affirmation  of  the  principles  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  but  was  ruled  out  of  order.  The 

1  The  active  manager  of  the  Gazette  was  Richard  Smith,  a  man  of  strong 
individuality,  the  editor-in-chief,  Joseph  H.  Barrett.  Both  were  Whigs.  Mr. 
Barrett  was  a  delegate  to  the  Chicago  convention. 


Nomination  of  Lincoln  291 

veteran,  deeply  wounded,  withdrew  from  the  hall.  This  inci 
dent,  the  only  one  calculated  to  mar  the  general  harmony,  was 
quickly  and  happily  corrected.  When  the  second  resolution 
was  read,  George  William  Curtis,  then  in  the  morning  of  his 
great  career,  moved  to  amend  by  inserting  the  language  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  where  it  would  fit  appropriately, 
and  sustained  the  motion  in  a  brief  speech  so  felicitously 
worded  as  to  command  the  unanimous  approval  of  the  conven 
tion.1  When  Mr.  Giddings  heard  of  this  he  returned  to  his 
seat  with  a  beaming  face. 

The  friends  of  Mr.  Seward  were  present  in  great  force. 
They  filled  the  hotels,  and  in  all  public  places  sounded  the 
praises  of  their  favorite  with  such  genuine  warmth  as  to  attach 
others  to  their  cause.  Thurlow  Weed  and  William  M.  Evarts 
were  the  conspicuous  leaders. 

Seldom  if  ever  in  the  whole  field  of  political  oratory  have  the 
speeches  of  Mr.  Evarts  at  Chicago  been  equalled.  Even  those  who 
most  decidedly  differed  from  him  followed  him  from  one  delegation 
to  another  allured  by  the  charm  of  his  words.  He  pleaded  for  the 
Republic,  for  the  party  that  could  save  it,  for  the  great  statesman 
who  had  founded  the  party,  and  knew  where  and  how  to  lead  it. 
He  spoke  as  one  friend  for  another,  and  the  great  career  of  Mr. 
Seward  was  never  so  illuminated  as  by  the  brilliant  painting  of  Mr. 
Evarts.2 

It  was  the  general  belief  that  Mr.  Seward  would  be  the  nomi 
nee.  Even  Mr.  Greeley,  who  appeared  as  a  delegate  for  Ore 
gon,  and  who  was  working  strenuously  and  ungenerously  to 
compass  the  defeat  of  his  whilom  friend,  telegraphed  the 

1  The  ever-ready  correspondent  who  toils  only  for  the  present  generation,  but 
who  unwittingly  leaves  permanent  marks  for  the  curious  who  follow  after,  gave 
this  description  of  the  author  of  Nile  Notes  of  a  Hoivadji  and  the  Potiphar  Papers 
as  he  appeared  in  this  convention  of  1860:     "He  is  a  handsome  man,  with  a 
rather  long  and  thin  intellectual  face,  leg-of-mutton  whiskers  of  a  light  color  and 
thin  texture,  good  eyes  and  a  broad  but  not  high  forehead.      He  speaks  fluently 
and  well,  but  not  strikingly,  and  would  probably  never  make  much  of  a  figure  in 
large,  popular  gatherings." — Cf.  Cor.  Indianapolis  Journal,  May  19. 

2  Twenty   Years  of  Congress,  vol.  i.,  p.  166. 


292  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Tribune  on  the  i/th  that  the  opposition  could  not  concentrate 
on  any  candidate,  and  Governor  Seward  would  be  nominated.1 
But  the  friends  of  Mr.  Lincoln  came  to  an  understanding  with 
the  Pennsylvania  delegation,  which  insured  the  support  of  that 
State  at  a  critical  moment.2  In  the  Ohio  delegation  were 
eight  active  anti-Chase  men — of  whom  three  (Delano,  Barrett 
and  Carter)  were  originally  friendly  to  Mr.  Lincoln — and  the 
votes  of  these  were  used  to  turn  the  tide — Indiana  and  Illinois 
being  solid  from  the  beginning  for  Mr.  Lincoln.  The  Illinoi- 
sans  with  great  shrewdness  on  the  fateful  day,  while  the  ad 
herents  of  Mr.  Seward  were  parading  the  streets  with  bands  of 
music,  filled  the  galleries  with  their  friends  and  so  created  a 
public  sentiment  within  the  hall  in  sympathy  with  their  cause. 
The  New  York  managers  had  committed  a  blunder  and  when 
they  made  the  discovery  it  was  too  late  to  rectify  it.  The 
solid  vote  of  the  Empire  State,  the  majority  of  the  votes  of 
New  England  and  the  eloquence  of  William  M.  Evarts  and 
Carl  Schurz  were  insufficient  to  carry  the  vote  for  Mr.  Seward 
to  a  majority  of  the  convention.  He  lost  four  votes  on  the 

1  It  is  related  by  Thomas  H.  Dudley  of  New  Jersey,  a  delegate  in  the  conven 
tion  of   1860,  that  Governor  Andrew,  on  behalf  of  New  England,   visited   the 
delegations  of  the  doubtful  States  and  promised  that  if  they  could  agree  on  a  sin 
gle  candidate  New  England  would  give  him  enough  votes  to  place  him  in  nomina 
tion,  but  notified  them  that  if  they  could  not  agree  then  the  Atlantic  States  would 
vote  for  Mr.  Seward.     A  conference  of  the  doubtful  States  was  held  without  an 
agreement  being  reached,  when  the  question  was  referred  to  a  committee  of  three 
from  each  State,  which  was  in  session  most  of  the  night.     At  ten  o'clock  "  the 
white  head  of  Horace  Greeley  was  thrust  into  the  room,"  and  he  was  told  nothing 
had  been  done.     It  was  then  he  telegraphed  the  Tribune  that  Mr.  Seward  would 
be  nominated.     An  agreement  that  the  doubtful  States  should  combine  on  Mr. 
Lincoln  was  reached  a  few  hours  later. — See  The  Century  Rfagazine,  July,  1890,  p. 
477.     The  report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  convention  shows  that  Gov.  Andrew 
worked  to  the  last  with  energy  and*zeal  for  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Seward. 

2  Some  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  Illinois  managers  had  a  private  conference  with  the 
Pennsylvania  delegation.     When  one  of  the  most  zealous  of  these  emerged  from 
the  room  he  was  accosted  by  David  Davis,  who  had  been  pacing  the  floor  im 
patiently,  with  the  inquiry,  "  What  about  the  Pennsylvanians  ?  "     "  We  have  got 
them,"  was  the  reply;   "we  promised  them  everything  in  sight."     One  of  the 
things  in  sight  was  a  protective  tariff  policy.     With  this  as  a  text,  Andrew  G. 
Curtin  was  chosen  Governor  in  October  by  a  majority  of  32,000. 


Constitutional  Union  Party  293 

third  ballot,  and  then  the  break  was  to  Abraham  Lincoln, 
whose  nomination  was  announced  to  the  people  of  Chicago  by 
the  firing  of  a  cannon  planted  on  the  roof  of  the  Tremont 
House.1  The  joy  and  enthusiasm  were  universal.  After  order 
had  been  restored  in  the  hall,  Mr.  Evarts  on  behalf  of  New 
York  promptly  moved  to  make  the  nomination  unanimous, 
and  John  A.  Andrew  and  Carl  Schurz  seconded  the  motion  in 
brief  remarks  calculated  to  soften  disappointment.  The  ticket 
was  completed  by  the  nomination  of  Hannibal  Hamlin  of 
Maine,  a  former  Democrat,  for  Vice-President. 

There  was  no  lack  of  virility  in  the  clauses  of  the  platform 
relating  to  the  slavery  issue,  and  threats  of  disunion  were  de 
nounced  "as  denying  the  vital  principles  of  free  government, 
and  as  an  avowal  of  contemplated  treason,  which  it  is  the  im 
perative  duty  of  an  indignant  people  sternly  to  rebuke  and 
forever  silence."  The  convention  took  advantage  of  the  re 
action  in  public  sentiment  against  a  free-trade  policy  to  make 
this  moderate  declaration  in  favor  of  a  revision  of  the  tariff: 

That,  while  providing  revenue  for  the  support  of  the  general 
government  by  duties  upon  imports,  sound  policy  requires  such  an 
adjustment  of  these  imposts  as  to  encourage  the  development  of  the 
industrial  interests  of  the  whole  country;  and  we  commend  that 
policy  of  national  exchanges  which  secures  to  the  workingman 
liberal  wages,  to  agriculture  remunerative  prices,  to  mechanics  and 
manufacturers  an  adequate  reward  for  their  skill,  labor  and  enter 
prise,  and  to  the  nation  commercial  prosperity  and  independence. 

If  one  could  accept  the  opinions  of  orators  and  press  bear 
ing  one  party  label  as  to  the  principles  and  aims  of  those  cher 
ishing  a  different  label,  there  was  but  one  really  national  party 
contending  for  the  suffrages  of  the  people  in  1860, —  the 
Constitutional  Union  party, — whose  candidates,  John  Bell  of 
Tennessee  and  Edward  Everett  of  Massachusetts,  had  been 
nominated  at  Baltimore  in  the  second  week  of  May.  The 

1  Under  the  direction  of  John  B.  Drake,  the  proprietor,  who  employed  Captain 
Ellsworth  for  that  purpose.  Ellsworth  was  in  less  than  a  year  assassinated  at 
Alexandria,  Va. 


294  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

convention  was  made  up  of  those  Whigs  of  the  North,  of 
whom  Washington  Hunt  of  New  York  and  the  coterie  of 
friends  of  Mr.  Webster  in  Boston  were  representatives,  who  re 
fused  to  be  reconciled  to  the  views  of  the  Republicans,  and  of 
those  Whigs  of  the  South  who,  retaining  an  hereditary  ani 
mosity  towards  the  Democratic  party,  sincerely  believed  that 
its  principles  were  tending  to  the  destruction  of  the  Union. 
The  most  conspicuous  of  this  class  was  Mr.  Crittenden,  who 
refused  the  use  of  his  name  on  any  ticket.  He  had  proposed 
the  name  National  Union  party,  but  it  being  suggested  by 
William  C.  Rives  that  Southerners  confounded  national  with 
consolidated,  and  that  there  was  still  a  deep  reverence  among 
the  people  for  the  Constitution  as  the  legitimate  basis  on  which 
the  Union  rests,1  Constitutional  was  substituted  for  National. 
The  new  party  had  no  other  platform  than  the  Constitution 
and  the  Union.  Its  purpose  was  to  create  such  a  preponder 
ance  of  conservative  sentiment  as  should  crush  out  sectional 
strife.  The  men  thus  associated  together  in  a  common  cause 
generally  believed  the  institution  of  slavery  to  be  an  evil — an 
evil,  though  ineradicable,  that  ought  not  to  be  permitted  to 
destroy  national  concord. 

Our  people  [said  Nathan  Appleton,  of  Boston]  are  opposed  to 
slavery  in  the  abstract,  but  the  wisest  and  best  informed,  looking 
at  it  as  a  practical  question,  see  the  utter  impossibility  of  abolishing 
it  at  present.  Besides  the  annihilation  of  more  than  a  thousand 
millions  of  property,  the  idea  of  converting  three  millions  of  slaves 
into  freemen  is  simply  preposterous.  If  done  at  all  it  will  be  only 
by  blood  and  a  war  of  extermination.2 

The  American  of  to-day,  in  looking  back  upon  the  time  of 
the  sectional  controversy,  with  the  light  of  our  country's  sub 
sequent  history  only  to  guide  him,  doubtless  finds  it  difficult 
to  realize  the  feeling  of  dread  and  almost  horror  that  then 
arose  whenever  sudden  emancipation  was  contemplated  as  a 
possibility.  While  there  is  yet  evidence  of  friction  between 

1  MS.     Crittenden  Papers.     Letter  dated  Castle  Hill,  Jan.  9,  1860. 
9  MS.     Ibid.     Letter  dated  Dec.  17,  1859. 


The  Campaign  of  1860  295 

the  races,  he  sees  none  of  those  direful  results  predicted  con 
stantly  for  half  a  century.  America  is  still  the  great  source  of 
cotton  supply;  there  has  not  been  a  repetition  of  the  atroci 
ties  of  San  Domingo,  and  the  African  is  not  relapsing  into 
barbarism,  but  he  exhibits  evidence  of  a  higher  intelligence 
and  is  surely  working  his  way  into  a  position  of  manly  inde 
pendence.  But  to  return  to  Mr.  Appleton,  who  next  considers 
the  threats  of  disunion. 

I  regret  [he  continues]  to  see  the  intense  excitement  of  the  South 
and  their  readiness  for  a  dissolution  of  the  Union.  Can  any  sane 
man  think  that  this  can  be  brought  about  under  the  present  state  of 
excitement  without  a  bloody  civil  war?  He  must,  I  think,  be 
equally  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  man  and  the  teachings  of  history. 
The  great  danger  it  appears  to  me  is,  that  in  this  state  of  excitement 
some  act  may  be  done  which  cannot  be  recalled,  and  that  the  great 
desideratum  is  to  allay  the  feeling  of  the  day,  in  the  hope  that 
reason  may  resume  her  empire  through  the  whole  country.  With  a 
little  time  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  spirit  of  conservatism  will 
show  itself  to  be  the  predominant  feeling  of  the  whole  country,  and 
that  the  efforts  of  the  wise  and  the  good  will  bring  about  a  better 
state  of  things. 

The  task  which  the  members  of  the  Constitutional  party  set 
for  themselves  was  highly  patriotic,  but  it  is  evident  that  they 
did  not  dream  that  the  demand  that  the  government  should 
interpose  to  protect  slave  property  in  the  territories  was  being 
used  as  a  wedge  to  divide  the  Union  by  men  who  already  had 
a  fixed  determination  to  found  a  new  confederacy,  and  that 
conceding  the  demand  would  only  postpone  the  day,  when  the 
experiment  would  be  made.  The  Democratic  party  had  been 
rent  asunder  by  the  very  antagonism  which  it  fomented  in 
order  to  obtain  a  temporary  ascendancy,  and  the  Union  would 
next  fall  as  a  sacrifice  to  a  fatal  policy. 

The  exceptional  conditions  made  the  campaign  of  1860  the 
most  important  since  the  re-election  of  George  Washington. 
Only  through  the  inauguration  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  elected 
honestly  and  fairly,  elected  by  the  strict  observance  of  all  of 


296  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

the  forms  of  law,  could  the  Constitution  be  tested  and  the 
rights  of  the  majority  be  vindicated.  A  faction  denied  to  a 
majority  of  the  States  the  right  of  free  selection  in  the  electoral 
college,  and  declared  that  if  it  were  exercised  a  minority  of  the 
States  would  withdraw  from  the  Union.  It  was  time  that  the 
intent  and  meaning  of  the  Constitution  should  be  determined 
in  a  practical  manner  once  for  all.  There  was  nothing  more 
sacred  about  the  institution  of  domestic  servitude  than  about 
any  other  institution  of  society,  and  if  a  faction  interested  in 
it  could  by  threats  of  disunion,  by  a  resort  to  force,  intimidate 
the  electors  and  obtain  control  of  the  government,  another 
faction  interested  in  some  other  institution  might  resort  to 
similar  tactics,  and  thus  our  republican  system  be  thoroughly 
Mexicanized.  The  election  of  Mr.  Breckinridge  would  settle 
nothing — it  would  only  postpone  the  crisis  until  every  fort  was 
in  command  of  a  secessionist,  every  ship  in  the  navy  and  every 
revenue  cutter  manned  by  officers  and  crew  ready  to  transfer 
the  same  to  a  new  authority,  and  every  custom-house  and  the 
treasury  itself  in  control  of  persons  inimical  to  the  Union.  The 
election  of  Mr.  Douglas  would  not  satisfy  this  faction  because 
his  friends  had  refused  to  accept  the  Southern  platform  at 
Charleston,  and  the  election  of  Mr.  Bell  would  leave  the  ques 
tion  as  far  from  settlement  as  ever.  The  broad  issue  of  the 
power  and  duty  of  Congress  in  dealing  with  new  territories, 
and  of  the  effect  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  which  had  been 
exhaustively  discussed  in  the  Congressional  debates,  possessed 
a  living  interest  and  could  not  be  ignored  by  a  public  speaker 
on  the  stump.  In  addition  to  these  topics  the  warfare  waged 
between  the  President  and  Mr.  Douglas ;  the  increase  of  the 
public  debt  and  a  reform  in  the  tariff  laws  so  as  to  revive 
American  industries  never  failed  to  command  close  attention 
from  any  audience  in  the  Northern  States. 

The  canvass  was  a  thorough  discussion  of  vital  questions.  It 
was  conducted  on  behalf  of  the  Republican  party  by  young 
men  who  constituted  the  chief  strength  of  the  party  and  who 
had  little  experience  in  political  management.  The  cause  and 
the  unexceptionable  candidates  required  no  intriguing,  no  vast 


The  Campaign  of  1860  297 

treasury,  no  adventitious  aids,  to  secure  a  hearing  and  popular 
support.  The  organization  of  companies  of  "Wide-awakes" 
throughout  the  North  was  to  meet  a  desire  for  closer  associa 
tion  among  the  young,  and  to  open  a  way  for  their  active  par 
ticipation  in  the  work  of  the  campaign.  In  uniform,  marching 
in  military  step  and  carrying  lighted  torches  or  Roman  can 
dles,  they  presented  at  night  a  brilliant  and  inspiring  spec 
tacle,  which  only  heightened  the  interest  with  which  the 
people  listened  to  the  speeches  of  the  many  distinguished 
statesmen  who  appeared  upon  the  stump.  Mr.  Seward  trav 
elled  as  far  west  as  Iowa,  and  made  several  notable  speeches. 
His  magnanimity,  the  uniform  good  feeling  and  zeal  he  dis 
played  in  the  campaign  made  a  favorable  impression.1  But 
others,  his  peers  in  party  councils,  deserved  as  well  the  public 
applause. 

Mr.  Douglas  conducted  his  own  campaign  with  characteristic 
vigor,  being  ably  supported  by  Pugh  and  other  brilliant 
lieutenants.  He  himself  spoke  to  countless  thousands  of 
his  fellow  countrymen,  defending  his  policy  of  non-interven 
tion  and  exposing  the  weakness  of  his  opponents  with  a  tact, 
a  plausibility  and  a  thoroughness  few  living  men  could  equal. 
No  other  speaker  of  the  day  attracted  such  crowds,  no  other 
was  received  with  such  demonstrations  of  popular  appreciation. 
He  did  not  remain  in  the  North,  but  penetrated  the  section 
apparently  given  over  to  the  control  of  the  disunionists.  At 
Norfolk  and  at  Montgomery  he  was  asked  the  question  if  the 
election  of  Abraham  Lincoln  would  be  a  sufficient  cause  to 
justify  the  Southern  States  in  seceding  from  the  Union,  to 
which  he  replied  with  an  emphasis  and  directness  that  ad 
mitted  of  no  doubt  of  his  position :  "The  election  of  a  man  to 
the  presidency  by  the  American  people  in  conformity  with  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  would  not  justify  any  at 
tempt  at  dissolving  this  glorious  confederacy,"  a  declaration 

1  "  The  magnanimity  of  Mr.  Seward,  since  the  result  of  the  convention  was 
known,  has  been  a  greater  ornament  to  him  and  a  greater  honor  to  his  party  than 
his  election  to  the  presidency  would  have  been." — James  Russell  Lowell  in  the 
Atlantic  Monthly,  Oct.,  1860. 


298  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

that  was  received  with  cheers '  even  in  Alabama,  where  the 
first  steps  in  revolution  had  already  been  taken.  When  a 
similar  question  was  put  to  William  L.  Yancey,  by  a  citizen  of 
New  York  at  Cooper  Union,  he  replied  evasively  with  the  pur 
pose  of  deceiving  his  audience,  and  two  weeks  later  at  Mont 
gomery  boasted  of  it.2 

Notwithstanding  that  the  early  elections  in  the  New  Eng 
land  States  were  favorable  to  the  Republicans,  there  was  a 
good  deal  of  anxiety  in  the  North  lest  the  election  should  go 
to  the  House  of  Representatives  in  which  the  Republicans 
could  only  control  the  votes  of  fifteen  out  of  thirty-three 
States.  The  efforts  of  the  Constitutional  Union  party  and  of 
the  Breckinridge  party  were  alike  directed  to  this  contingency, 
for  it  was  the  general  opinion  that  no  other  of  the  candidates 
could  win  votes  from  the  opposition  parties.3  In  case  an  elec 
tion  by  the  House  should  fail,  the  Senate  would  choose  Joseph 
Lane.  This  contingency  brought  about  a  dangerous  fusion  in 
New  York.  The  great  October  States,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio 
and  Indiana,  were  carried  for  the  State  tickets  by  decisive  ma 
jorities,  which  showed  the  popular  drift  to  be  towards  the 
Republican  party.  In  Pennsylvania,  Andrew  G.  Curtin,  the 
candidate  for  Governor,  made  the  tariff  question  prominent 
and  won  many  doubtful  votes.  In  Indiana  the  Republican 
candidate  for  Governor,  Henry  S.  Lane,  a  former  Whig,  found 
that  old  party  associates  who  had  before  been  implacable  were 
reached  through  the  tariff  plank  of  the  Chicago  platform.  It 
was  believed  that  the  votes  of  the  October  States  settled  the 
presidency,  but  the  opposing  parties  made  a  last  desperate 
effort  in  New  York  to  defeat  Mr.  Lincoln,  by  effecting  a  fusion 
favorable  to  Mr.  Douglas.  If  they  had  succeeded,  Mr.  Lin 
coln  would  have  had  but  145  electoral  votes  and  the  combined 
opposition  158.  New  York,  however,  went  with  New  Eng- 

1  The  Cradle  of  the  Confederacy. 

3  Montgomery  Advertiser  ;  also,   The  Cradle  of  the  Confederacy. 

3  The  managers  of  each  believed  it  possible  to  succeed  in  the  House.  "  If  the 
election  goes  to  the  House  Breckinridge's  election  is  certain." — MS,  Letter  of 
John  W.  Stevenson  to  Thomas  B.  Stevenson,  July  igth.  Stevenson  Papers.  But 
Bell  stood  a  better  chance  there. 


Forebodings  of  Secession  299 

land,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Indiana  and  the  Northwest.  In 
New  Jersey  four  Lincoln  electors  and  three  "Fusion  "  were 
chosen.  In  the  two  Pacific  coast  States  the  Republican  ticket 
received  pluralities;  in  every  other  free  State  except  New 
Jersey,  an  absolute  majority.  Douglas  carried  Missouri  and 
received  the  votes  of  three  electors  in  New  Jersey.  Bell  car 
ried  Maryland,  Virginia  and  Kentucky,  and  Breckenridge  the 
rest  of  the  slave  States.1 

The  result  in  the  South  was  a  triumph  of  Union  sentiment. 
The  combined  vote  of  Bell  and  Douglas  was  690,000,  and  the 
vote  for  Breckinridge  561,000.  In  the  Gulf  States  there  was, 
in  a  poll  of  330,000,  a  bare  majority  of  14,000  for  Mr.  Breck 
inridge.  While  172,000  men  stood  by  Mr.  Yancey,  there 
were  157,000  who  stood  with  Mr.  Bell  for  "the  Constitution, 
the  Union  and  the  enforcement  of  the  laws,"  or  with  Mr. 
Douglas  in  denying  the  right  and  policy  of  secession  in  the 
event  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  election.2  That  this  Union  sentiment 
should  be  finally  overcome  was  a  grievous  disappointment  to 
thousands  who  were  afterward  coerced  to  the  support  of  the 
Confederacy.  It  simply  was  surprised  by  an  organized  force 
directed  by  men  who  knew  what  they  wanted. 

The  sentiment  of  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the  North  was 
determined,  but  as  ill-boding  signs  on  the  Southern  horizon 
multiplied,  portending  a  national  calamity,  many  demanded 
that  an  attempt  at  conciliation  and  compromise  should  be 
made  anew;  some  were  even  so  craven  as  to  advise  the  accept 
ance  of  whatever  terms  the  secessionists  might  offer.3  Prompt 
action  by  those  who,  in  anticipation  of  this  opportunity,  had 

1  The  electoral  vote  was  :  Lincoln,  180  ;   Breckinridge,  72  ;  Bell,  39  ;  Douglas, 
12.     In  the  border  slave  States  over  26,400  ballots  were  cast  for  Mr.  Lincoln. 

2  The  Cradle  of  the  Confederacy. 

3  The  following  amazing  propositions  and  suggestions,  made  by  a  prominent 
citizen  of  a  Middle  State  to  the  people  of  the  South,  illustrate  the  text : 

"i.  That  all  the  offensive  and  insulting  legislation  of  the  North  be  at  once 
repealed. 

"  2.  That  the  negro  be  declared,  by  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  incap 
able  of  citizenship,  or  of  participating  in  any  election  for  national  officers. 

"3.     That  the  general  government  be  deprived  of  the  power   of  appointing 


300  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

already  taken  steps  to  precipitate  secession  and  form  a  new 
confederacy,  rendered  the  possibility  of  uniting  conservative 
people  on  any  plan  of  pacification  more  and  more  doubtful 
from  day  to  day.  Before  the  ballots  were  cast  for  President, 
Governor  Gist  addressed  a  message  to  the  South  Carolina  Legis 
lature  recommending  that  a  convention  of  the  people  of  the 
State  be  immediately  called  in  the  event  of  the  election  of  Mr. 
Lincoln ;  that  the  military  force  of  the  State  should  be  placed 
in  a  position  to  be  used  at  the  shortest  notice;  that  the  men 
between  the  ages  of  eighteen  and  forty-five  should  be  efficiently 
armed,  and  the  services  of  ten  thousand  volunteers  be  ac 
cepted.  The  indications  were  that  the  Gulf  States  would  fol 
low  the  course  of  South  Carolina,  and  that  finally  the  whole 
South  would  be  united.  In  the  preceding  January  the  Legis 
lature  of  Alabama  had  instructed  the  Governor  of  that  State 

to  local  offices,  in  the  Southern  States,  men  inimical  to  their  institutions  and 
rights. 

"4.  That  the  Supreme  Court  be  so  regulated  that  the  South  might  always 
have  an  equality,  when  questions  involving  their  rights  were  before  it. 

"5.  That  proper  and  perfect  guarantees  be  given  for  the  protection  of  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia  till  Maryland  gives  freedom  and  the  taxables  of  the 
District  demand  emancipation. 

"  6.  That  similar  guarantees  be  given  that  the  transmission  of  negroes  between 
the  Southern  States  shall  never  be  interfered  with. 

"  7,  That  the  tariff  of  duties  have  a  constitutional  limit  of  not  more  than  20 
per  cent.,  so  that  it  may  never  prove  an  undue  favor  to  one  section,  or  an  oppres 
sion  to  another. 

"  8.  That  such  modifications  be  made  in  the  mode  of  choosing  presidential 
electors  as  may  give  a  just  and  due  representation  to  minorities  in  the  electoral 
colleges  and  secure  the  country  forever  hereafter  from  a  purely  sectional  election 
of  President. 

"  The  territorial  question  I  would  leave  for  the  present  in  abeyance  :  the  South 
would  gain  nothing  now,  practically,  by  a  formal  recognition  of  her  disputed 
rights.  She  has  these  indeed  nominally,  and  the  Supreme  Court  has  confirmed 
them  in  a  decision,  to  which  very  many  are  disposed  to  bow  who  do  not  approve 
of  it.  When  hereafter  a  question  may  arise  as  to  further  acquisitions  at  the  South, 
those  who  demand  it  may  depend  upon  the  support  of  their  friends  forming  the 
minority  at  the  North,  and  still  more  surely  on  that  spirit  of  acquisitiveness  so 
general  among  nations  as  among  men,  which  would  be  very  apt  to  prevail  even  in 
New  England,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  their  commerce  and  manufactures  would 
greatly  gain  by  it. " 


Forebodings  of  Secession  301 

to  call  a  convention  if  a  Republican  should  be  elected  Presi 
dent,  such  early  legislation  being  advised  by  the  secessionists, 
doubtless,  to  compel  prompt  action  if  the  executive  were  dis 
posed  to  palter. 

The  telegraphic  news  from  New  York  on  the  morning  of 
the  /th  of  November  found  the  people  of  Alabama  in  that 
state  of  excitement  which  precedes  the  execution  of  some  fate 
ful  deed.  The  leader  who  had  planned  for  this  for  ten  years, 
-who  had  spoken  in  graceful,  even  eloquent  terms  of  the 
Union,  with  a  heart  filled  with  bitter  hatred, — resolving  not  to 
permit  time  for  reflection,  or  for  the  forty-one  thousand  voters 
of  the  State  who  repudiated  Breckinridge  to  rally,  promptly 
called  on  the  people  to  organize. 

We  can  now  enforce  a  peaceable  secession  [he  urged  with  plausi 
bility].  The  time  may  come,  will  come,  must  come,  if  you  delay, 
when  you  can  gain  your  freedom,  if  at  all,  only  as  the  Colonies 
gained  it  when  they  separated;  only  as  our  fathers  gained  it  when 
they  fought  the  battle  of  disunion  through  toil  and  bloodshed, 
through  courage  and  desolation.1 

And  what  he  meant  by  peaceable  secession  Mr.  Yancey 
explained  in  a  speech  before  a  mass  meeting  on  the  8th  of 
November. 

I  have  good  reason  to  believe  [said  he]  that  the  action  of  any 
State  will  be  peaceable — will  not  be  resisted — under  the  present,  or 
any  probable  prospective  condition  of  federal  affairs.  I  believe 
there  will  not  be  power  to  direct  a  gun  against  a  sovereign  State. 
Certainly  there  will  be  no  will  to  do  so  during  the  present  administration? 

Secessionists  held  seats  in  Mr.  Buchanan's  Cabinet;  they  in 
fluenced  his  deliberations;  they  controlled  the  War  and 
Treasury  departments;  they  paralyzed  the  legislature  while 
the  revolution  they  had  planned  swept  the  States  into  a  course 
from  which  they  could  not,  from  which  it  was  intended  they 
should  not,  turn.  The  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  was  a  pretext 

1  Montgomery  Advertiser,  Nov.  8th. 

2  Ibid.;  also,  The  Cradle  of  the  Confederacy,  p.  466. 


302  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

only ;  slavery  agitation  was  a  means  convenient  for  their  pur 
pose;  the  political  power  which  they  had  enjoyed  for  nearly 
half  a  century  had  been  taken  from  them,  and  supremacy  could 
be  regained  only  in  a  new  confederacy  in  which  their  social 
system  should  be  paramount.1 

The  plans  of  the  secessionists  were  temporarily  interrupted 
by  the  bold  stand  taken  in  Georgia  by  Alexander  H.  Stephens 
and  Benj.  H.  Hill  against  secession.  Mr.  Toombs  and  others, 
fearing  that  a  convention  might  not  be  sufficiently  complai 
sant  ,2  sought  to  influence  the  State  Legislature  to  take  immedi 
ate  action  looking  to  a  withdrawal  from  the  Union.  "When 
revolutions  begin,  constitutions  end" — an  epigram  that  ex 
presses  the  Georgia  Senator's  views.3  Mr.  Stephens  advised 
against  precipitate  action,  and  declared  in  a  speech  before  the 
Legislature  on  the  I4th  of  November,  that  the  election  of  no 
man,  constitutionally  chosen  to  the  office  of  President,  would 
be  a  sufficient  cause  for  any  State  to  separate  from  the  Union; 
and  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  people  of  Georgia,  many  of 
whom  had  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  to  aid  still  in  maintaining  it.  This  view  was  endorsed 
two  days  later  by  the  largest  meeting  ever  held  in  Greene 
County,  and  by  another  mass  meeting  in  Hancock  County  on 
the  1 7th.  Resolutions  which  were  unanimously  adopted  justly 
indicted  a  class  of  politicians  common  to  both  sections,  who, 
instead  of  repressing  national  distrust,  promoted  it ;  instead  of 
removing  causes  of  dispute  created  them  for  selfish  purposes. 

They  have  pandered  to  the  passions  and  prejudices  of  the  people 
at  home,  keeping  each  section  ignorant  of  the  patriotic,  conserva 
tive,  catholic  feeling,  until  exasperated  by  the  incendiary  and  dis 
organizing  representations  of  hungry  office-seekers,  both  sections 

1  These  facts  were  not  generally  understood  at  the  time,  but  have  been  made 
clear  by  information  obtained  since  the  inauguration  of  the  Confederacy. 

2  "  I  am  afraid  of  conventions,"  said  Mr.  Toombs. 

3 "  I  do  not  wish  the  people  to  be  cheated,"  was  Mr.  Toombs's  apology  when  he 
was  criticised  for  proposing  to  submit  to  a  vote  the  question  in  this  form,  "  Will 
you  submit  to  Abolition  rule  or  resist?  "  He  had  said  on  another  occasion,  "  My 
first,  my  only  allegiance  is  due  to  Georgia." 


Forebodings  of  Secession  303 

find  themselves  engaged  in  a  fierce  controversy  which  they  had  no 
hand  in  bringing  on.1 

This  feeling,  though  widely  extended,  was  not  sufficiently 
formidable,  especially  as  it  received  no  encouragement  from 
the  national  administration,  to  stay  the  tide  of  secession.  The 
Georgians,  as  were  the  people  of  other  States  where  there  was 
a  strong  Union  sentiment,  were  borne  along  upon  currents 
which  there  was  no  hope  of  resisting.  This  was  so  apparent 
by  the  3<Dth  of  November  that  Mr.  Stephens  wrote  despond- 
ingly  that  all  efforts  to  save  the  Union  would  prove  unavail 
ing.  "The  truth  is  our  leaders  and  public  men  who  have 
taken  hold  of  this  question,  do  not  desire  to  continue  it  on  any 
terms.  They  do  not  wish  any  redress  of  wrongs ;  they  are  dis- 
unionists/^r  se,  and  avail  themselves  of  present  circumstances 
to  press  their  objects."  2 

1  Augusta  Chronicle  and  Sentinel,  Nov.  2Oth.  The  secessionists  were  using,  to 
fan  the  flames  in  the  South,  reckless  language  attributed  to  Wendell  Phillips, 
whom  they  described  as  "  the  boldest  and  most  philosophic  leader  of  the  Lincoln 
party."  The  quotation  which  served  to  make  secessionists  of  Union  men  was 
this  :  "No  man  has  a  right  to  be  surprised  at  this  state  of  things.  It  is  just 
what  we  have  attempted  to  bring  about.  It  [the  Republican  party]  is  the  first 
sectional  party  ever  organized  in  this  country.  It  does  not  know  its  own  face  and 
calls  itself  national.  The  Republican  party  is  a  party  of  the  North  pledged 
against  the  South." 

3  Life,  p.  369. 


CHAPTER   XI 

SECESSION  AND   REBELLION — LAST  ATTEMPTS  AT   COM 
PROMISE — THE   CONFEDERATE   SOUTH 

IT  was  unfortunate  for  Mr.  Buchanan  and  unfortunate  for 
the  country  in  this  crisis  that  he  had  forfeited  the  confi 
dence  of  the  intelligent  people  of  the  North  by  an  exhi 
bition  of  intense  partisanship  in  the  attempt  to  force  the 
Lecompton  constitution  upon  an  unwilling  community.  His 
desertion  of  Walker  and  Stanton  because  they  refused  to  be 
the  instruments  of  fraud;  the  defences  he  set  up  in  extenua 
tion  of  wrongs  repeatedly  committed  and  exposed,  and  his 
flagrant  misrepresentations  of  the  motives  and  the  acts  of  the 
great  body  of  the  citizens  of  the  free  States,  were  so  many 
reasons  for  distrusting  him  when  he  was  brought  face  to  face 
with  a  threatened  disruption  of  the  Union.  He  no  longer 
commanded  the  respect  even  of  the  Southern  extremist,  who, 
as  we  have  seen,  held  him  to  be  committed  to  a  policy  of  in 
action.  Whether  placed  in  that  position  by  an  understanding 
with  the  secession  leaders  or  by  indirect  commitment  through 
members  of  his  Cabinet  does  not  matter:  he  was  powerless  to 
influence  or  restrain  the  Hotspurs  who  had  enjoyed  his  most 
intimate  confidence,  and  who  treated  with  contempt  the  argu 
ments  and  appeals  of  his  message  of  the  3d  of  December. 
Granting  that  for  the  sake  of  arousing  the  country  to  a  reali 
zation  of  the  gravity  of  the  situation  he  exaggerated  the  sup 
posed  offences  of  one  section,  the  belief  was  that  this  message 
was  only  another  chapter  of  political  unfairness,  completing  the 
history  of  an  administration  which  had  been  condemned  by 

304 


Distrust  of  Buchanan  305 

the  people.  But  the  probability  is  that  he  really  meant  what 
the  language  of  his  message  implies,  that  the  Northern  States 
generally  had  placed  upon  their  statute  books  laws  for  the  ex 
press  purpose  of  defeating  the  execution  of  the  fugitive  acts, 
which  he  held  to  be  unconstitutional  and  void.  While  it  was 
not  true  that  this  had  been  done  by  any  considerable  number 
of  the  States  of  the  North ;  while  it  was  conceded  by  promi 
nent  Democratic  statesmen  that  the  fugitive  laws  had  been 
administered  with  fairness,  firmness  and  remarkable  success; 
while  Mr.  Yancey  had  publicly  declared  that  nothing  had  been 
done  since  1851  of  which  the  South  could  justly  complain  ;  and 
while  Mr.  Buchanan  declared  that  "no  single  act  had  ever 
passed  Congress,  unless  the  Missouri  Compromise  be  an  excep 
tion,  impairing  in  the  slightest  degree  the  rights  of  the  South 
to  their  property  in  slaves,"  yet  the  impression  left  by  the 
message  was  that  the  Northern  people  were  guilty  of  aggres 
sions  upon  the  Southern  people,  and  that  if  the  offending 
States  did  not  promptly  repeal  the  statutes  to  which  exception 
was  taken,  "the  injured  States,  after  having  used  all  peaceful 
and  constitutional  means  to  obtain  redress,  would  be  justified 
in  revolutionary  resistance  to  the  government  of  the  Union." 
The  President  knew  that  the  people  of  the  free  States  had 
early  repelled  the  doctrine  that  a  State  could  nullify  a  United 
States  law.  How  had  they  invaded  any  clearly  defined  right 
of  the  slaveholders?  They  held  slavery  to  be  an  evil,  to  be 
morally  wrong:  so  had  Washington  and  Jefferson,  so  had  Clay 
and  many  of  his  contemporaries;  so  did  Christendom  hold  it 
to  be.  But  the  South  could  be  deprived  of  rights  only  by 
the  general  government,  and  they  had  been  to  all  intents 
and  purposes  the  government — the  executive  and  legislative 
departments  had  been  under  their  control.  Then  how  justify 
the  application  of  the  right  of  revolution  to  the  situation  in 
which  the  Southern  States  were  placed  at  this  time?  The 
effect  was  immediately  mischievous,  and,  following  the  sensa 
tional  and  unwarranted  arraignment  of  one  section,  the  mes 
sage  was  interpreted  to  Mr.  Buchanan's  hurt. 

The  right  of  revolution  against  an  intolerable  tyranny  was 


VOL.  I. — 20. 


306  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

universally  conceded.  If  that  right  had  been  affirmed  by  Mr. 
Buchanan  simply  as  a  prelude  to  his  able  argument  against  the 
right  of  a  State  to  secede,  he  would  have  been  understood  at 
the  North  and  his  argument  would  have  been  no  less  effective 
in  the  South.  It  was  all  that  any  one  could  ask  for  in  its  de 
nial  of  the  doctrine  that  the  Constitution  in  any  of  its  pro 
visions,  in  spirit,  or  in  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  formed, 
or  in  the  method  by  which  it  was  accepted  by  the  States, 
justified  a  State  in  withdrawing  from  the  compact  without  the 
consent  of  the  other  States,  belonging  to  the  Union.  It  like 
wise  argued  with  great  clearness  the  manner  in  which  the  fed 
eral  government  could  constitutionally  enforce  obedience  to 
the  laws  of  the  United  States  on  the  part  of  the  individual 
citizens  of  a  State  withdrawn  from  the  Union  or  seeking  to 
withdraw  from  it.  Custom-houses  and  courts  were  under  the 
control  of  the  general  government,  and  through  them  the 
laws  could  be  enforced,  to  the  aid  of  which  the  whole  power 
of  the  government  could  be  brought.  The  inhabitants  of  a 
State  are  the  State,  said  Jefferson  Davis,  while  Northern  press 
and  people  had  little  patience  with  the  nice  distinction  in 
volved  denying  to  the  government  the  power  to  coerce  a  State, 
while  claiming  for  it  the  right  to  compel  the  individual  citizens 
of  a  State  to  obey  the  laws  enacted  by  the  Congress.  We  are 
bound  to  take  notice  of  the  fact  that  this  very  policy  was  con 
tinued  by  Mr.  Lincoln  until  after  the  fall  of  Fort  Sumter.1 
Nevertheless,  the  immediate  effect  of  Mr.  Buchanan's  state 
ment  of  the  case  was  to  strengthen  the  disunion  move 
ment,  to  make  the  Southern  people  believe  that  after  all  they 
were  oppressed.  The  fatal  doctrine  of  the  resolutions  of 
1798-99,  which  made  each  State  the  sole  judge  of  wrongs 
and  of  the  time  and  method  of  redress,  being  the  basis  of 
Southern  Democracy,  made  it  practically  impossible  to  in 
terpose  any  plan  to  stay  its  application  in  a  time  of  general 
commotion. 

The  President  recommended  that  Congress  propose  to  the 

1  See  Curtis's  Life  of  James  Buchanan,  vol.  ii.,  for  an  exposition  of  this  whole 
subject. 


Secession  Speeches  in  Congress  307 

States  the  adoption  of  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  set 
tling  the 

true  construction  of  the  Constitution  on  three  special  points:  First. 
An  express  recognition  of  the  right  of  property  in  slaves  in  the  States 
where  it  now  exists  or  may  exist.  Second.  The  duty  of  protecting 
this  right  in  all  the  common  territories  throughout  their  territorial 
existence,  and  until  they  shall  be  admitted  as  States  into  the  Union 
with  or  without  slavery,  as  their  constitutions  may  prescribe. 
Third.  A  like  recognition  of  the  right  of  the  master  to  have  his 
slave  who  has  escaped  from  one  State  to  another  restored  and 
"delivered  up  "  to  him,  and  of  the  validity  of  the  fugitive  slave  law 
enacted  for  this  purpose,  together  with  a  declaration  that  all  State 
laws  impairing  or  defeating  this  right  are  violations  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  are  consequently  null  and  void. 

Both  Houses,  acting  on  this  suggestion,  appointed  committees 
to  consider  the  state  of  the  nation  and  to  formulate  legislation 
to  heal  disaffection.  In  the  House  a  committee  of  thirty-three 
was  appointed  with  Thomas  Corwin  as  chairman ;  in  the  Sen 
ate  a  committee  of  thirteen  of  which  Mr.  Powell  of  Kentucky 
was  chairman.1  Before  this  action  had  been  taken,  however, 
several  secessionists  made  speeches  of  great  significance — to 
the  regret  of  Mr.  Crittenden,  who  was  filling  the  role  of  paci 
ficator,  so  long  that  of  another  and  greater  Kentuckian. 

On  the  conclusion  of  the  reading  of  the  message  in  the 
Senate,  December  4th,  Mr.  Clingman  of  North  Carolina  ex 
pressed  his  dissatisfaction  with  it.  The  menace  to  the  South 
was  not  in  the  election  of  a  dangerous  man  to  the  presidency, 
—that  in  our  complicated  system  might  very  well  occur  by  ac 
cident, — but  in  the  fact  that  Lincoln  had  been  elected  ' '  because 
he  was  known  to  be  a  dangerous  man."  The  hope  that  harm 
could  not  result  from  the  election  because  a  majority  of  the 
Senate  was  politically  antagonistic  was  fallacious.  Changes 

1  The  Senate  committee  consisted  of  representative  men  who  had  the  confidence 
of  the  whole  country.  Besides  Mr.  Powell,  chairman,  there  were  Mr.  Seward, 
Mr.  Collamer,  Mr.  Bigler,  Mr.  Hunter,  Mr.  Toombs,  Mr.  Davis,  Mr.  Rice,  Mr. 
Crittenden,  Mr.  Douglas,  Mr.  Wade,  Mr.  Doolittle  and  Mr.  Grimes — appointed 
Dec.  18,  1860. 


3o8  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

would  soon  take  place  which  would  alter  the  political  character 
of  that  body.  The  true  policy  of  the  South  was  to  meet  the 
issue  in  limine,  and  he  hoped  it  would  be  done.  Whatever 
was  done  should  be  done  peaceably.  Let  the  public  property 
be  divided  and  the  debts  fairly  apportioned.  The  Southern 
States  had  no  fears  for  the  future.  They  were  in  possession  of 
more  territory  than  the  thirteen  Colonies  had  when  they 
seceded  from  Great  Britain,  a  territory  capable  of  supporting 
a  population  of  three  hundred  millions.  They  were  rich  in  re 
sources.  In  1859  their  exports  realized  more  than  $300,000,- 
ooo.  If  their  imports  equalled  this  sum  a  tax  of  ten  per  cent, 
would  give  them  a  revenue  twice  as  much  as  General  Jackson's 
administration  spent  in  its  first  year.  This  would  enliven 
business  in  the  seaboard  towns.  Already  manufacturing  in 
dustries  had  been  started  in  North  Carolina  which  paid  a  profit 
of  fifty  per  cent,  on  production,  and  these  extended  through 
out  the  South  would  give  an  impetus  to  business  generally.1 

Wigfall  of  Texas,  contemplating  with  satisfaction  the  re 
turns  of  the  custom-houses,  exclaimed  in  triumphal  tones  that 
cotton  was  king. 

I  say  that  cotton  is  king,  and  that  he  waves  his  sceptre  not  only 
over  these  thirty-three  States,  but  over  the  island  of  Great  Britain 
and  over  continental  Europe,  and  there  is  no  crowned  head  who 
does  not  bend  the  knee  in  fealty  and  acknowledge  allegiance  to  that 
monarch.  There  are  five  millions  of  people  in  Great  Britain  who 
live  upon  cotton.  You  may  make  a  short  crop  of  grain,  and  it  will 
never  affect  them,  but  you  may  cram  their  granaries  to  bursting  and 
exhaust  the  supply  of  cotton  for  one  week,  and  all  England  is  starv 
ing;  and  we  know  what  men  do  when  suffering  from  famine.  They 
do  not  burst  open  barns  and  divide  the  corn.  In  their  frenzy  they 
burn  and  destroy. 

Five  million  bales  at  least  they  would  raise  yearly,  when  free, 
and  spurning  with  contempt  the  paltry  ten  per  cent,  which 
Clingman  put  upon  the  imports  they  expected  to  fill  their 
ports,  he  spoke  of  twenty,  forty  per  cent.,  but  not  wishing  to 

1  Cong.  Globe,  Dec.,  1860. 


Secession  Speeches  in  Congress  309 

be  pinned  to  a  definite  figure  added  in  a  burst  of  confidence  : 
"What  tariff  we  shall  adopt,  as  a  war  tariff,  I  expect  to  discuss 
in  a  few  months,  and  in  another  chamber."  Having  the 
Yankees  in  the  pillory,  he  proceeded  to  the  work  of  terrifying 
them. 

You  suppose  that  numbers  constitute  the  strength  of  governments 
in  this  day.  I  tell  you  that  it  is  not  blood;  it  is  the  military  chest; 
it  is  the  almighty  dollar.  When  you  have  lost  your  market;  when 
your  operatives  are  turned  out;  when  your  capitalists  are  broken, 
will  you  go  to  direct  taxation?  When  you  cease  to  have  exports, 
will  you  have  imports  ? 1 

Another  Southern  speaker,  gloating  over  the  anticipated  dis 
tress  of  the  North  resulting  from  the  inability  to  obtain  cotton 
without  the  consent  of  the  South,  declared  that  in  a  few  weeks 
or  months  the  Northern  merchants  would  be  on  their  knees 
begging  for  relief — that  a  rebellion  of  the  people  would  compel 
the  administration  of  Lincoln  to  accept  whatever  terms  the 
triumphant  South  might  offer.  Such  optimistic  views  over 
came  the  objections  of  thousands  who  were  attached  to  the 
Union  and  swept  them  into  rebellion. 

Senator  Iverson  of  Georgia,  was  patronizing  and  scornful 
by  turns.  He  spoke  as  early  as  the  5th  of  December. 

When  we  go  out  to  form  our  confederacy  [said  he], — as  I  think 
and  hope  we  shall  do  very  shortly, — the  federal  government  will  see 
its  true  policy  to  be  to  let  us  go  in  peace  and  make  treaties  of  com 
merce  and  amity  with  us,  from  which  they  will  derive  more  advan 
tages  than  from  any  attempt  to  coerce  us.  They  cannot  succeed 
in  coercing  us.  If  they  allow  us  to  form  our  government  without 
difficulty,  we  shall  be  very  willing  to  look  upon  them  as  a  favored 
nation  and  give  them  all  the  advantages  of  commercial  and  amicable 
treaties. 

Threats  of  coercion  were  met  with  coarse  bravado  quite  char 
acteristic  of  a  class  of  men  of  the  time.  "  Men  talk  sometimes 
about  their  eighteen  millions  who  are  to  whip  us;  and  yet  we 

1  Cong.  Globe,  p.  73. 


310  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

have  heard  of  cases  in  which  just  such  men  had  suffered  them 
selves  to  be  switched  in  the  face,  and  trembled  like  sheep- 
stealing  dogs,  expecting  to  be  shot  every  minute."  '  Before 
Lincoln's  inauguration  five  States,  perhaps  eight,  would  be  out 
of  the  Union.  When  that  deed  should  be  accomplished  he 
should  like  to  see  the  man  who  would  propose  a  declaration  of 
war  against  them.  The  fifteen  slave  States,  or  even  the  five  then 
moving,  banded  together  in  one  government,  would  defy  the 
world  in  arms.  If  the  world  could  not  overcome  them,  much 
less  could  the  Northern  States.  There  "was  a  clog  in  the  way 
of  the  lone-star  State  of  Texas  in  the  person  of  her  Governor," 
who  refused  to  convene  the  Legislature  to  aid  the  disunionists, 
but  if  he  should  continue  obdurate,  the  Georgia  Senator  was 
sure  "some  Texan  Brutus"  would  arise  "to  rid  his  country  of 
the  hoary-headed  incubus,"  who  stood  between  the  people 
and  their  sovereign  will.2  So  assassination  was  to  be  an  in 
strument  in  the  accomplishment  of  their  purpose !  Let  it  be 
remembered  that  all  this  and  volumes  more  equally  bad  was 
spoken  in  a  deliberative  body  by  Senators  who  had  taken  a 
solemn  oath  to  obey  the  Constitution,  and  who  had  already 
determined  to  overthrow  the  government. 

The  facts  would  justify  a  broader  statement,  but  the  method 
of  our  narrative  does  not  call  for  the  development  of  all  the 
intricacies  of  the  secession  plot.  A  few  of  the  most  striking 
incidents  shall  suffice.  On  the  I4th  of  December  thirty  mem 
bers  of  Congress,  representing  in  part  the  Gulf  States  and 
Arkansas  and  South  Carolina,  and  including  Senators  Davis 
and  Brown  of  Mississippi  and  Senators  Benjamin  and  Slidell 
of  Louisiana, — men  who  spoke  authoritatively  for  their  section, 
—  issued  the  following  address  to  their  constituents,  which 
clearly  fixes  the  responsibility  for  all  that  followed : 

The  argument  is  exhausted.  All  hope  of  relief  in  the  Union 
through  the  agencies  of  committees,  Congressional  legislation  or 
constitutional  amendment  is  extinguished,  and  we  trust  the  South 

1  Cong,  Globe,  p.  1 1. 

2  The  Governor  who  had  the  courage  to  resist  the  secessionists  was  General  Sam 
Houston,  the  hero  of  Texas. 


Secession  Speeches  in  Congress          311 

will  not  be  deceived  by  appearances  or  the  pretence  of  new  guaran 
tees.  In  our  judgment  the  Republicans  are  resolute  in  the  purpose 
to  grant  nothing  that  will  or  ought  to  satisfy  the  South.  We  are 
satisfied  the  honor,  safety  and  independence  of  the  Southern  peo 
ple  require  the  organization  of  a  Southern  confederacy — a  result  to 
be  obtained  only  by  separate  State  secession — that  the  primary  ob 
ject  of  each  slaveholding  State  ought  to  be  its  speedy  and  absolute 
separation  from  a  Union  with  hostile  States. 

This  was  less  than  two  weeks  after  Congress  convened,  be 
fore  it  was  possible  to  test  the  disposition  of  members  gener 
ally,  and  after  the  Committee  of  Thirty-three  had  declared  that, 
whether  the  discontent  of  the  Southern  people  was  justified  or 
not,  "any  reasonable,  proper  and  constitutional  remedies  and 
effectual  guarantees  of  their  peculiar  rights  and  interests,  as 
recognized  by  the  Constitution,  necessary  to  preserve  the  peace 
of  the  country  and  the  perpetuation  of  the  Union,  should  be 
promptly  and  cheerfully  granted."  This  expressed  the  public 
feeling.  The  prompt  secession  of  several  States,  as  recommen 
ded  above,  would  render  the  agreement  on  any  plan  of  pacifi 
cation  more  difficult. 

The  encouragement  the  Southern  leaders  received  from 
Northern  men  was  such  as  to  make  them  persevere  in  the 
course  they  had  marked  out,  regardless  of  all  concessions  as  to 
a  continuance  of  political  control  or  to  an  increase  of  power. 
Early  in  the  preceding  January  Jefferson  Davis  had  received  a 
letter  from  ex-President  Pierce  which  assured  him  that  in  the 
event  of  war  the  fighting  would  not  be  along  Mason  and 
Dixon's  line  merely,  if  would  be  within  the  Northern  States, 
in  the  streets,  between  the  Democratic  allies  of  the  South  and 
their  political  opponents.  "Those  who  defy  law  and  scout 
constitutional  obligations  will,  if  we  ever  reach  the  arbitrament 
of  arms,  find  occupation  enough  at  home."  '  Keitt  electrified 
a  South  Carolina  audience  by  assuring  them  that  a  million 
Democrats  in  the  North  would  stand  as  a  wall  to  defend  them 
against  invasion.  And  Senator  Lane  of  Oregon,  candidate 

1  Letter  of  January  6,  1860,  found  by  Union  soldiers  in  Jefferson  Davis's 
Mississippi  home. 


312  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

for  Vice-President  in  the  campaign  of  1860,  in  denouncing  the 
loyal  sentiments  of  Andrew  Johnson  of  Tennessee,  assured 
the  secessionists  that  these  same  Northern  Democrats  would 
not  march  under  Lincoln's  bloody  banner  "to  invade  the  soil 
of  the  gallant  State  of  South  Carolina  when  she  may  withdraw 
from  a  confederacy  that  has  refused  her  that  equality  to  which 
she  is  entitled  as  a  member  of  the  Union  under  the  Constitu 
tion  ;  instead  of  marching  with  him,  we  will  meet  him  there 
ready  to  repel  him  and  his  forces."  '  Other  public  men,  not 
ready  to  join  the  military  arm  preparing  in  the  South,  prom 
ised  to  aid  in  paralyzing  the  government — a  promise  that  some 
kept,  while  others  reflected  long  enough  to  be  convinced  of 
their  own  folly. 

The  attitude  of  the  New  York  Tribune  and  of  the  New  York 
Herald  confirmed  the  secessionists  in  the  belief  that  separation 
would  be  peaceable,  and  that  if  Mr.  Lincoln  attempted  to  use 
force  he  would  be  unsupported.  Mr.  Greeley  regarded  "the 
right  to  secede"  as  identical  with  the  right  of  revolution,  and 
in  this  respect  was  more  approved  of  by  the  secessionists  than 
Mr.  Buchanan.  He  declared  that  "whenever  a  considerable 
section  of  our  Union  shall  deliberately  resolve  to  go  out  we 
shall  resist  all  coercive  measures  designed  to  keep  it  in."  2 

The  Republicans  for  the  most  part  sat  silent,  refusing  to  be 
drawn  into  debate,  to  the  surprise  and  annoyance  of  the 
secessionists,  who  felt  that  they  needed  their  help  to  fire  the 

1  Cong.  Globe,  Dec.  10,  1860,  p.  143. 

2  This  course  of  the  Tribime,  supported  with  all  the  ability  of  its  great  editor, 
was  continued  until  the  new  year  was  ushered  in.     The  language  quoted  in  the 
text  was  telegraphed  all  over  the  South,  and  threw  into  the  ranks  of  the  secession 
ists  thousands  upon  thousands  of  those  who  had  hitherto  wavered.      "  His  editorial 
upon  the  heels  of  the  election,  and  while  Southern  blood  was  hot,  confirmed  the 
announcement  of  Mr.  Yancey,  that  the  South  would  be  let  alone,  and  did  more  to 
secure  the  secession  of  Alabama,  Georgia  and  the  other  Gulf  States  than  all  else 
besides." — The  Cradle  of  the  Confederacy,  pp.  471-474.      This  testimony  of  an 
intelligent    Alabamian,    who   participated  in  the  events  which  he   describes,   is 
entitled  to  great  weight.     Mr.   Greeley's   attempt  to  explain  this  course  of  the 
Tribune  at  a  critical  period — that  it  was  intended  to  cause  the  South  to  pause  to 
reflect  and  to  strengthen  the  Union  sentiment  in  the  border  slave  States — is  an  ex 
planation  that  does  not  explain.     See  The  American  Conflict,  vol.  i.,  pp.  358-362. 


Attitude  of  Republican  Members          313 

Southern  heart.  In  the  House,  Mr.  Sherman,  leader  of  the 
majority  and  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means, 
busy  in  trying  to  put  the  disordered  finances  of  the  Buchanan 
administration  on  a  business  basis,  was  impatient  of  all  inter 
ruptions  for  political  purposes.  In  the  Senate  the  impetuous 
Senator  from  New  Hampshire  commented  briefly  and  not 
quite  fairly  on  the  President's  message,1  but  the  policy  of  the 
friends  of  the  incoming  administration  was  to  avoid  collision, 
to  say  no  word  that  could  be  used  to  excite  faction  or  that 
would  embarrass  Mr.  Lincoln.  The  Republican  newspapers 
generally  refrained  from  exasperating  comments.  Plain  lan 
guage  in  the  Capitol  or  out  of  it  was  deprecated.  The  manner 
was  that  of  one  softly  beating  about  the  bush  for  fear  of  dis 
turbing  the  birds  that  are  in  it. 

Believing  that  this  policy  was  calculated  to  mislead  the 
whole  country — deceive  the  North  as  to  the  real  purposes  of 
the  leaders  of  the  secession  movement,  and  the  South  as  to 
what  those  charged  with  the  responsibility  of  enforcing  the 
Constitution  and  the  laws  could  do  in  such  a  crisis, — a  crisis 
caused  by  a  political  theory  which  rendered  a  stable  Union  im 
practicable — Senator  Wade,  on  the  I7th  of  December,  made  a 
speech  which  brought  the  real  issue  into  plain  view.  Remind 
ing  the  Southern  leaders  that  they  had  had  control  of  the 
legislative  and  executive  departments  for  forty-eight  years, 
he  asked  how  they  could  lay  a  complaint  against  a  party  never 
before  intrusted  with  power.  He  declared  that,  as  there  was 
no  new  principle  avowed,  and  as  any  purpose  of  using  the  vic 
tory  recently  won  to  the  injury  of  any  individual  or  State  was 
distinctly  disavowed,  there  was  wanting  any  just  ground  for  a 
disruption  of  the  Union.  A  proposition  was  before  the  Senate 
looking  to  a  "compromise."  What  was  there  to  compromise? 
An  election  had  been  held  in  a  legal  and  regular  manner,  and 

1  Mr.  Hale's  remarks  must  be  considered  as  an  attempt  to  put  in  words  the 
impression  left  on  his  mind  by  the  reading  of  the  message.  He  thought  it  the 
part  of  wisdom  to  look  the  crisis  squarely  in  the  face.  Of  course  he  was  mis 
represented  by  the  editors  of  a  few  newspapers,  who  he  said  felt  it  incumbent  on 
them  "  to  utter  an  apology  about  once  a  week,  that  God  ever  sent  such  miserable 
wretches  into  the  world." — Cong.  Globe,  pp.  9  and  34. 


3H  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

the  popular  verdict  had  been  declared  according  to  the  Consti 
tution.  Could  that  verdict  be  reversed  by  any  power  at  this 
stage?  What  would  be  the  effect  of  yielding  to  the  dissatis 
faction  of  a  party  failing  to  continue  itself  in  power,  or  failing 
to  get  control  of  the  government  in  the  manner  prescribed  by 
the  Constitution?  You  have  no  government;  anarchy  inter 
venes;  civil  war  may  follow  it;  all  the  evils  that  may  come  to 
the  human  imagination  may  be  consequent  upon  such  a  course 
as  that.  The  moment  the  American  people  cut  loose  from  the 
sheet  anchor  of  free  government  and  liberty — that  is,  whenever 
it  is  denied  in  this  government  that  a  majority  fairly  given 
shall  rule  —  the  people  are  unworthy  of  free  government. 
Turning  to  the  Southern  members,  Mr.  Wade  asked : 

If  you  had  elected  your  candidate,  Mr.  Breckinridge,  do  you  be 
lieve  that  we  would  have  raised  a  hand  against  the  Constitution  of 
our  country  because  we  were  fairly  beaten  in  an  election?  Some  of 
you  have  said  that  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  showed  hostility  to 
you  and  your  institutions.  Sir,  it  is  the  common  fate  of  parties  to 
differ,  and  one  does  not  intend  to  follow  exactly  the  course  of  policy 
of  the  other;  but  when  you  talk  of  constitutional  rights  and  duties, 
honest  men  will  observe  them  alike,  no  matter  to  what  party  they 
belong.1 

A  speech  equal  in  candor  but  of  greater  scope  and  power, 
thoroughly  patriotic  and  loyal  in  tone,  followed  and  occupied 
the  attention  of  the  Senate  for  two  days.  The  secession 
leaders  saw  in  Andrew  Johnson  of  Tennessee  a  deadly  antag 
onist,  and  they  dreaded  his  influence  on  a  class  in  the  South 
who  were  not  prepared  to  go  to  the  length  of  permanent  sep 
aration.  The  part  played  by  Mr.  Johnson  at  this  time  is  of 
exceptional  interest.  The  great  drama  is  in  progress ;  the  dis- 
unionists  are  moving  in  triumph  apparently  to  the  accomplish 
ment  of  their  purpose,  unhindered  by  those  charged  with  the 
responsibility  of  keeping  the  citadel,  when  a  knight  bearing 

1  Cong.  Globe,  p.  103. 


Attitude  of  Republican  Members          315 

the  Union  arms  challenges  them  and  declares  his  purpose  to 
maintain  his  cause  in  the  last  extremity  by  force  of  arms. 
There  is  then  within  the  government  a  power  of  defence 
against  internal  foes.  This  power  is  disclosed  by  a  fair  and 
intelligent  exposition  of  historical  facts;  it  is  deducible  from 
the  character  of  the  Union.  If  a  State  can  secede  at  will  and 
pleasure,  why  cannot  a  majority  of  the  States  combine,  as  Mr. 
Madison  said,  and  reject  a  State  out  of  the  confederacy?  Have 
a  majority  of  the  States  that  right?  They  have  no  such  right ; 
the  compact  is  reciprocal.  The  Constitution  was  ratified  with 
out  reservation  or  condition,  and  it  was  ratified  "in  toto  and 
forever  "  '/  and  there  is  but  one  way  to  get  out  of  it  without 
the  consent  of  the  parties,  and  that  is  by  revolution.  This 
reasoning  was  not  acceptable  to  the  radicals,  who  for  obvious 
considerations  wished  to  establish  the  constitutional  right  of  a 
State  to  secede.  Washington  spoke  of  an  inseparable  Union, 
when  he  congratulated  the  country  on  the  success  of  the  gen 
eral  government  in  putting  down  the  Whiskey  Rebellion  in 
western  Pennsylvania.  Where  was  the  difference,  asked  Mr. 
Johnson,  between  executing  the  law  upon  a  part  and  upon  the 
whole?  Suppose  the  whole  of  Pennsylvania  had  rebelled  and 
resisted  the  excise  law,  would  not  it  have  been  as  competent 
and  as  constitutional  for  General  Washington  to  execute  the 
law  against  the  whole  as  against  a  part?  Mr.  Johnson  declared 
his  purpose  to  remain  in  the  Union,  to  stand  by  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  to  devote  his  life  to  the  work  of  saving  the  greatest 
government  on  earth. 

The  speeches  of  Johnson  and  Wade  electrified  the  free 
States  and  gave  a  firm  tone  to  the  discussions  there.  The 
position  of  Senator  Wade  was  openly  endorsed  in  meetings 
held  in  different  parts  of  the  country,  as  the  only  one  consis 
tent  with  the  principles  of  an  elective  system,  the  only  one  by 
which  the  integrity  of  the  Union  could  be  maintained.  This 
was  not  an  occasion  to  give  new  guarantees  to  an  institution 
at  war  with  civilization,  by  concessions  and  compromises, 

1  See  letter  of  James  Madison  to  Alexander  Hamilton,  July,  1788.  Hamilton's 
Works,  vol.  i.,  p.  465. 


316  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

whether  expressed  in  the  form  of  legal  enactments  or  of  con 
stitutional  amendments.1 

The  appointment  of  commissioners  by  South  Carolina,  which 
seceded  December  2Oth,  to  treat  with  the  government  of  the 
United  States  concerning  the  new  relations  which  were  held  to 
be  established  by  the  ordinance  of  secession,  was  the  first  de 
cisive  step  to  test  the  attitude  of  the  federal  government.  If 
they  should  be  received  officially  by  the  President  it  would  be 
a  recognition  of  South  Carolina  as  an  independent  State.  The 
issue  was  awaited  with  feverish  anxiety.  The  commissioners 
arrived  in  Washington  on  the  26th,  but  they  did  not  have  an 
interview  with  the  President  until  the  28th,  when  they  were 
received  as  private  gentlemen.  The  fact  that  they  were  re 
ceived  at  all  afforded  ground  for  censure  of  the  President. 
Their  bearing  was  not  calculated  to  conciliate  public  opinion, 
which  was  rapidly  hardening  against  South  Carolina  and  all 
who  were  suspected  of  consenting  to  her  course.  Events 
crowded  upon  each  other  with  such  rapidity  as  to  confuse  the 
facts  and  give  rise  to  misconceptions.  Major  Anderson 
secretly  withdrew  from  Fort  Moultrie  to  Fort  Sumter  for 
greater  security,  and  thereupon  the  State  authorities  made 
this  an  excuse  for  seizing  Fort  Moultrie,  Castle  Pinckney,  the 
custom-house  and  post-office,  and  later  the  arsenal  containing 
public  property  estimated  to  be  worth  half  a  million  of  dollars. 

1  Proceedings  of  a  mass  meeting  held  at  Indianapolis,  Dec.  23.  The  resolutions 
adopted  were  more  vigorous  than  opinions  expressed  at  most  of  the  meetings  held 
in  the  North  at  this  time.  They  were  written  by  Wm.  P.  Fishback,  a  rising 
member  of  the  Indiana  bar.  These  resolutions  further  declared  that  all  belief  in 
the  existence  of  enmity  to  the  South  was  without  foundation,  and  that  the  im 
pression  that  any  existed  had  been  created  by  the  Democratic  press  of  the  free 
States  ;  that  Mr.  Buchanan's  course  furnished  sufficient  ground  for  his  impeach 
ment,  and  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Republican  party  to  remain  steadfast  to  the 
principles  enunciated  in  the  late  canvass  ;  repose  a  generous  confidence  in  the 
honored  citizen  whom  the  popular  will  had  called  to  the  head  of  the  government, 
and  also  in  the  representatives  of  the  party  in  Congress,  "  believing  that  they, 
when  the  present  imbecile  administration  retires,  will  be  found  equal  to  the 
emergency  in  which  they  are  placed  and  that  under  the  auspices  of  the  President 
elect,  sustained  as  he  is  by  the  largest  vote  ever  cast  for  any  President  in  this 
nation,  our  country  will  go  on  in  its  career  with  renewed  vigor  and  strength." 


South  Carolina  Secedes  317 

It  was  Mr.  Buchanan's  misfortune  to  be  under  suspicion,  and 
his  impeachment  on  the  ground  of  "complicity  with  the 
South  Carolina  treason"  was  sharply  demanded  by  the  press.1 
The  charge  that  the  President  early  in  December  had  promised 
the  South  Carolina  delegation  in  Congress  that  the  status  in 
Charleston  harbor  should  be  preserved  does  not  seem  to  have 
had  other  foundation  than  a  desire  expressed  that  peace  should 
be  maintained  until  the  people  had  time  for  reflection  ;  and  the 
statement  made  by  ex-Congressman  Keitt  at  Columbia  that 
Mr.  Buchanan  was  pledged  to  secession  must  be  regarded  as 
calumnious,  notwithstanding  the  South  Carolinian  was  held  to 
be  "a  perfect  and  entire  gentleman."  2 

Political  bias  and  the  hope  cherished  that  South  Carolina 
might  be  coaxed  back  doubtless  influenced  Mr.  Buchanan  to 
draft  a  reply  to  the  impertinent  demand  of  the  commissioners 
that  the  United  States  troops  should  immediately  be  with 
drawn  from  the  harbor  of  Charleston,  which  Judge  Black,  Mr. 
Holt  and  Mr.  Stanton  believed  contained  fatal  concessions  to 
the  disunionists.  The  first  went  so  far  as  to  declare  that  he 
would  withdraw  from  the  Cabinet  if  the  reply  should  be  sent  in 
the  form  of  the  draft.  This  firmness  saved  the  President  from 
committing  a  fatal  error,  and  his  good  faith  was  shown  by 
authorizing  Judge  Black  to  modify  the  draft  to  suit  himself. 
The  amended  paper  must  be  regarded  as  the  act  of  the  Presi 
dent,  as  it  was  approved  of  and  signed  by  him.  He  refused 
peremptorily  to  comply  with  the  demand  for  the  withdrawal  of 
the  troops,  and  declared  his  purpose  to  defend  Fort  Sumter  by 
all  the  means  in  his  power.3  The  commissioners  hied  to  their 
own  country  without  having  accomplished  their  purpose, 
unless  that  purpose  was  to  defy  the  federal  government. 
Later  Colonel  Hayne,  "special  envoy  "  of  the  State  of  South 

1  See  Cincinnati  Gazette,  Dec.  21-30. 

2  The  passage  in  the  report  of  Mr.  Keitt's  speech  referred  to  in  the  text  reads 
as  follows  :   "South  Carolina,  single  and  alone,  was  bound  to  go  out  of  this  ac 
cursed  Union.      He  would  take  her  out  if  but  three  men  went  with  him,  and  if 
slaves  took  her  back  it  would  be  to  her  graveyard.      Mr.  Buchanan  was  pledged 
to  secession,  and  he  meant  to  hold  him  to  it." — Cong.  Globe,  p.  139. 

3  Life,  vol.  ii.,   chap.  viii. 


318  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Carolina,  appeared  at  Washington,  to  demand  of  the  President 
the  unconditional  surrender  of  Fort  Sumter  to  the  authorities  of 
that  State,  accompanied  with  a  threat  that  if  the  demand  was 
refused  the  fort  would  be  taken  by  force  of  arms.  The  Sec 
retary  of  War  on  behalf  of  the  President  refused  to  accede  to 
the  demand. 

Inquiry  by  a  special  committee  of  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  into  the  facts  relating  to  the  action  of  South  Carolina, 
and  the  seizure  of  the  public  property  by  the  authorities  of 
other  States  before  adopting  ordinances  of  secession,  resulted 
in  a  report  severely  censuring  the  President,  which  expressed 
public  opinion  generally  prevailing  in  the  free  States.  The 
committee  declared  that  it  was  not  able  to  resist  the  inference 
that,  in  the  beginning  of  the  revolutionary  movement  against 
the  government  of  the  United  States,  there  were  relations  of 
an  extremely  friendly  character  between  those  who  contem 
plated  rebellion  and  those  whose  duty  it  was  to  suppress  it. 

We  cannot  but  regard  it  as  a  most  extraordinary  fact  that  par 
ties  notoriously  contemplating  the  disruption  of  the  government 
should  beforehand  stipulate  with  its  executive  authority  in  respect 
to  the  most  convenient  and  least  dangerous  mode  for  making  the 
rebellion  successful.  While  the  President  has  avowed  his  determina 
tion  to  execute  the  laws,  he  does  not  seem  to  have  regarded  treason 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  contemplated  and  existing, 
as  among  the  crimes  condemned  by  the  laws  of  the  land  and  deserv 
ing  punishment.1 

The  failure  to  reinforce  the  forts  in  Charleston  harbor  im 
mediately  after  Mr.  Lincoln's  election  was  a  fatal  and  inex 
cusable  blunder.  The  President  had  said  to  Floyd,  Secretary 
of  War,  that  "if  the  forts  should  be  taken  by  South  Carolina 
in  consequence  of  our  neglect  to  put  them  in  defensible  condi 
tion  it  were  better  for  you  and  me  both  to  be  thrown  into  the 
Potomac  with  mill  stones  tied  about  our  necks  "  ;  but  he  failed 
to  require  his  Secretary  of  War  to  reinforce  and  provision 

1  Cong.  Globe,  Feb.  21,  1861,  p.  1256  ;  majority  report  of  committee. 


Public  Business  Demoralized  319 

them,  and  when  Judge  Black  attempted  to  get  a  peremptory 
order  to  Floyd  he  confessed  himself  annoyed  at  this  interfer 
ence  with  the  business  of  another  department.1  He  paltered 
to  the  end— a  sad  affliction  to  his  country.  To  the  student  of 
the  history  of  this  time  who  may  seek  to  locate  responsibility 
this  inquiry  becomes  pertinent:  Did  Mr.  Buchanan's  intimate 
friend  Black,  in  1856,  understand  his  infirmities  of  character 
as  well  as  Mason,  Hunter  and  Slidell,  who  made  him  the 
candidate  of  the  South? 

The  timid  policy  pursued  by  the  President,  that  no  resis 
tance  should  be  offered  to  the  course  of  events  in  the  South, 
and  that  the  government  must  not  shed  the  first  drop  of 
blood,  led  to  the  demoralization  of  the  public  business  and  a 
condition  of  lawlessness  in  the  States  preparing  to  withdraw 
from  the  Union.  The  public  property  —  forts,  arsenals,  cus 
tom-houses,  post-offices,  navy  yards  and  revenue  cutters  — 
was  seized  by  direction  of  the  State  authorities.  Money 
collected  on  government  account  was  held  subject  to  the 
order  of  the  States.  The  position  of  the  government  was  so 
humiliating  as  to  call  forth  remonstrances  from  its  friends  in 
Congress,  who  gave  the  President  to  understand  that,  unless 
he  could  maintain  the  supremacy  and  dignity  of  the  govern 
ment  and  protect  the  public  property,  he  must  no  longer 
rely  on  their  support.2  General  Cass,  in  his  letter  of  resig 
nation  of  the  I2th  of  December,  expressed  his  dissatisfaction 
with  the  policy  of  inaction.  Howell  Cobb  had  previously 
resigned  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  join  the  secession 
movement.  The  resignations  of  Mr.  Floyd,3  Secretary  of  War, 
and  Mr.  Thompson,  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  were  also  soon 
received.  Judge  Black  succeeded  General  Cass  as  Secretary 

1  Secession  Secrets  ;  or,  Judge  Black's  Defence.    Philadelphia  Press,  Aug.  7,  1881. 

2  Memoirs  of  John  A.  Dix.  vol.  i.,  p.  361. 

3  The  resignation  of  Floyd  was  the  only  one  demanded  by  the  President.   Bonds 
to  the   amount  of  $870,000  had  been  abstracted  by  a  clerk,  and  acceptances  of 
equal  amount  had  been  issued  by  the  Secretary  to  William  H.   Russell   of   the 
firm  of  Russell,  Majors  &  Waddell.     It  is  asserted  by  Mr.  Buchanan's  biographer 
that  the  discovery  of  the  irregularities  converted  Floyd  from  a  Unionist  to  a  seces 
sionist.     See  vol.  ii.,  chap.  xx. 


320  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

of  State,  Edwin  M.  Stanton  became  Attorney-General,  and 
John  A.  Dix,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury — an  appointment 
of  the  first  importance.  The  character  of  the  reorganized 
Cabinet  was  an  assurance  to  the  country  that  there  would  be 
no  more  paltering  in  dealing  with  the  enemies  of  the  Union. 
The  President  had  been  brought  to  a  realization  of  the  extent 
of  the  prevalence  of  a  lack  of  public  confidence  in  his  adminis 
tration  by  the  failure  of  his  first  selection  of  a  successor  to 
Mr.  Cobb.  Philip  F.  Thomas  of  Maryland  filled  the  office  for 
a  few  weeks.  He  was  coldly  received  by  the  moneyed  men  of 
New  York.  The  administration  was  without  credit,  and  he 
was  powerless  to  restore  it.  The  President  was  given  to  un 
derstand  that  help  would  be  withheld  until  he  put  in  his  Cabi 
net  some  one  on  whom  the  friends  of  the  government  could 
depend.  This  brought  about  a  meeting  of  bankers  in  New 
York,  who  decided  to  require  of  the  President,  as  a  condition 
of  their  support,  the  appointment  of  General  Dix  to  a  Cabinet 
position.1  The  President  wisely  complied  with  the  demand. 
The  new  Secretary  found  the  department  demoralized.  Orders 
to  officers  in  the  States  involved  in  the  secession  movement 
were  disregarded.  He  acted  with  great  vigor,  compelled  the 
unwilling  to  respect  the  authority  of  the  government,  and  gave 
the  country  an  inspiring  example  of  aggressive  loyalty.  He 
sent  an  agent  to  the  Gulf  States  to  secure  such  property  as  had 
not  already  been  seized,  with  instructions  to  provision  the  rev 
enue  cutters  and  send  them  to  New  York.  On  being  informed 
that  Captain  Breshwood  of  the  revenue  cutter  McClelland, 
stationed  at  New  Orleans,  refused  to  obey  his  order,  General 
Dix  telegraphed  his  agent  to  have  the  Captain  arrested  and 
placed  in  irons  as  a  mutineer,  and  added  these  words,  which  are 
as  famous  as  any  in  history:  "If  any  one  attempts  to  haul 
down  the  American  flag,  shoot  him  on  the  spot."  The  order 
was  not  shown  to  the  President  because  it  was  certain  he  would 
withhold  it — a  fact  that  throws  a  flood  of  light  on  the  embar 
rassments  of  the  administration  arising  from  the  infatuation  of 
the  executive. 

1  Memoirs  of  John  A.  Dix,  vol.  i.,  p.  362. 


Cabal  of  Southern  Senators  321 

The  inaction  of  Congress  was  further  evidence  that  the 
country  was  in  a  state  of  revolution.  A  large  majority  of  the 
Senate  was  opposed  politically  to  the  President-elect,  and  in 
the  Thirty-seventh  Congress  the  Republicans  would  be  in  a 
minority  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  Whatever  his  dis 
position,  Mr.  Lincoln  would  be  powerless  to  carry  into  effect 
any  policy  inimical  to  the  interests  of  the  South;  but  charged 
with  the  responsibility  of  administration  he  would  of  necessity 
be  conservative.  This  was  well  understood  by  the  distin 
guished  men  who  controlled  the  destinies  of  the  Southern 
States,  but  it  clearly  was  not  their  policy  to  give  time  and  op 
portunity  for  the  mass  of  their  communities  to  obtain  know 
ledge  of  it  and  consolidate  an  opposition  to  secession,  on  which 
they  had  long  since  resolved.  They  labored  to  precipitate  ac 
tion,  to  involve  as  many  States  as  possible  before  the  well 
disposed  in  both  sections  of  the  country  could  be  brought  to 
cooperate  on  some  plan  of  compromise.  They  encouraged 
the  belief  that  they  were  open  to  terms  of  adjustment,  but 
they  were  not  helpful. 

The  delay  of  certain  States  in  following  South  Carolina 
alarmed  these  leaders,  and  on  the  /th  of  January  a  secret 
caucus  was  held  in  Washington  by  the  Senators  from  Flor 
ida,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Arkansas  and 
Texas,  who  decided  to  advise  and  urge  the  immediate  secession 
of  their  States,  and  recommended  that  a  convention  be  called 
to  meet  at  Montgomery  not  later  than  the  I5th  of  February — 
this  date  being  fixed  upon  to  enable  Louisiana  and  Texas  to 
participate.  This  would  be  two  weeks  before  Mr.  Lincoln 
could  be  inaugurated. 

The  plan  informally  agreed  upon,  it  would  seem  from  all 
the  testimony  now  available,  was  to  set  up  a  provisional  gov 
ernment,  the  head  of  which  might  be  a  border  State  man  if 
the  border  States  could  be  induced  to  withdraw  from  the 
Union.  It  was  believed  that  by  remaining  in  their  seats  as 
long  as  possible,  or  until  their  States  took  action,  t'hey  could 
keep  the  hands  of  Mr.  Buchanan  tied  and  prevent  the  pass 
age  of  force,  loan  and  volunteer  acts  which  would  put  the 


VOL.  I.— 21. 


322  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

new  administration  in  immediate  condition  for  hostilities.1  A 
committee  was  appointed,  consisting  of  Senators  Davis, 
Slidell  and  Mallory,  to  carry  out  the  decrees  of  the  caucus. 
This  is  an  interesting  phase  of  the  disunion  movement  in 
which  Senators  were  then  engaged ;  Senators  representing 
their  States  in  a  national  capacity,  who  were  sworn  to  support 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  who  were  acting  as 
the  friends  and  privy  councillors  of  Mr.  Buchanan.  They 
were  advising  the  seizure  of  the  public  property  within  their 
respective  States  while  members  of  the  legislative  department 
of  the  government,  and  preventing  the  adoption  of  any  legis 
lation  to  protect  it,  or  of  remedial  measures  which  the  great 
body  of  the  American  people  demanded,  by  making  conditions 
entirely  impracticable  and  unreasonable.2  Mr.  Davis,  writing 
after  the  failure  of  the  Confederacy,  denounced  the  application 
of  the  words  "conspiracy  "  and  "cabal "  to  this  caucus  action 
of  Senators,  and  he  characterized  the  statement  that  they 
directed  from  Washington  the  movements  in  the  States  as  a 
travesty  upon  history.  Words  are  of  less  significance  than 
deeds.  The  letter  of  Senator  Yulee,  written  immediately  after 
the  meeting  of  the  Senators,  and  found  at  Fernandina  the  fol 
lowing  year  by  soldiers  of  the  United  States,  is  evidence  that 
must  be  admitted.  It  shows  a  conspiracy — a  purpose,  if  that 
be  more  acceptable — to  cripple  and  thwart  the  federal  gov 
ernment.  Mr.  Davis  says  that  the  disunion  movement  began 
before  the  meeting  of  Congress,  and  that  he  advised  Missis 
sippi  to  secede  and  take  the  chances  of  war.8  In  the  light  of 
the  experience  of  nations,  what  term  properly  describes  such 
action? 

Three  days  after  the  caucus  Jefferson  Davis  spoke  in  criti 
cism  of  the  President's  special  message  of  January  8th,  and  on 

1  Letter  from  Senator  D.  L.  Yulee  of  Florida  to  Joseph  Finegan,  dated 
"Washington,  January  7,  1861,"  found  in  Fernandina  by  United  States  soldiers 
in  the  winter  of  1862. — New  York  Times,  March  15,  1862. 

3  One  of  the  propositions  laid  before  the  Committee  of  Thirteen  by  Jefferson 
Davis  was  designed  to  subvert  the  constitutions  and  laws  of  the  free  States. 

3  See  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government,  vol.  i.,  p.  201,  and  remarks 
of  Jefferson  Davis  on  withdrawing  from  the  Senate,  ibid.,  221,  and  Cong.  Globe. 


Cabal  of  Southern  Senators  323 

the  state  of  the  Union.  A  month  previously  he  had  said  that 
the  Union  would  lose  its  value  to  him  if  he  had  to  regard  it  as 
a  union  held  together  by  physical  force,  thus  coinciding  with 
Horace  Greeley  and  other  Republicans  of  the  North  who  made 
fraternity  the  cardinal  principle  of  association.  The  same  sen 
timent  was  prominent  in  his  speech  of  the  loth  of  January. 
The  constitutional  right  of  secession  was  maintained  with  a 
skill  and  logical  force  that  made  Mr.  Davis  easily  the  first  of 
Southern  statesmen.  He  had  a  special  purpose,  doubtless,  in 
making  the  argument  of  Andrew  Johnson  the  text  of  this  part 
of  his  speech.  The  Constitution  gave  no  power  to  the  fed 
eral  government  to  coerce  a  State;  this  was  generally  con 
ceded.  The  claim  that  individuals  could  be  coerced  was 
equally  unwarranted.  What  is  a  State?  Is  it  land  and  houses? 
Is  it  taxable  property?  Is  it  the  organization  of  the  local  gov 
ernment?  Or  is  it  all  these  combined,  with  the  people  who 
possess  them?  Destroy  the  people,  and  yet  not  make  war 
upon  the  State !  "It  is  like  making  desolation,  and  calling  it 
peace." 

And  yet  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  sought  to  make  a 
general  government  that  would  operate  on  individuals.  "A 
State  exercising  the  sovereign  function  of  secession  is  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  federal  government,  unless  we  woo  her  with 
the  voice  of  fraternity,  and  bring  her  back  to  the  enticements 
of  affection."  When  the  time  arrived  for  Mr.  Davis  to  with 
draw  from  the  Senate  he  pointedly  drew  a  distinction  between 
nullification  and  secession — elaborating  on  the  argument  which 
Horace  Greeley  had  made  two  months  earlier.  "We  must 
ever  resist,"  said  the  editor  of  the  Tribune,  "the  asserted  right 
of  any  State  to  remain  in  the  Union  and  nullify  or  defy  the 
laws  thereof;  to  withdraw  from  the  Union  is  quite  another 
matter." 

Nullification  [said  Mr.  Davis,  carrying  the  argument  of  the  editor 
to  its  logical  conclusion],  nullification  is  a  remedy  which  it  is  sought 
to  apply  within  the  Union,  and  against  the  agent  of  the  States.  It 
is  only  to  be  justified  when  the  agent  has  violated  his  constitutional 


324  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

obligations,  and  a  State  assuming  to  judge  for  itself  denies  the  right 
of  the  agent  thus  to  act,  and  appeals  to  the  other  States  of  the  Union 
for  a  decision;  but  when  the  States  themselves  and  when  the  people 
of  the  States  have  so  acted  as  to  convince  us  that  they  will  not  re 
gard  our  constitutional  rights,  then,  then  for  the  first  time,  arises 
the  doctrine  of  secession  in  its  political  application. 

Recognizing  the  right  of  a  State  to  secede,  Mr.  Greeley  would 
interpose  no  hindrance.  Believing  in  the  right,  Mr.  Davis 
held  that  the  federal  government  had  no  constitutional  power 
to  coerce  a  State. 

Andrew  Jackson  would  have  had  no  patience  with  this  in 
genious  attempt  to  cover  a  disruption  of  the  Union  with  the 
cloak  of  the  Constitution.  He  declared  the  purpose  of  nulli 
fication  to  be  to  sever  and  destroy  the  government;  that  "it 
was  incompatible  with  the  existence  of  the  Union,  contra 
dicted  expressly  by  the  letter  of  the  Constitution,  unauthor 
ized  by  its  spirit,  inconsistent  with  every  principle  on  which  it 
was  founded,  and  destructive  of  the  great  object  for  which  it 
was  formed."  Nor  could  he  find  any  support  of  secession  in 
the  Constitution.  (<To  say  that  any  State  may  at  pleasure 
secede  from  the  Union,  is  to  say  that  the  United  States  are 
not  a  nation,  because  it  would  be  a  solecism  to  contend  that 
any  part  of  a  nation  might  dissolve  its  connection  with  the 
other  parts,  to  their  injury  or  ruin,  without  committing  any 
offence."  1  But  to  return  to  Mr.  Davis's  illusive  theory. 

From  the  world  of  speculation  appeared  "a  scudding  cloud- 
age  of  shapes,"  some  one  of  which  might  serve  as  a  model  for 
a  new  confederacy  of  independent  sovereign  states,  to  be 
founded  upon  a  mutuality  of  interests.  But  the  philosopher  is 
entitled  to  be  heard  in  his  own  language.  Separation  had 
already  taken  place. 

Shall  we  allow  this  separation  to  be  total?  Shall  we  render  it 
peaceful,  with  a  view  to  the  chance  that  when  hunger  shall  brighten 
the  intellects  of  men,  and  the  teachings  of  hard  experience  shall 
have  tamed  them,  they  may  come  back  in  the  spirit  of  our  fathers, 

1  Proclamation  by  Andrew  Jackson,  Dec.,  1832. 


Cabal  of  Southern  Senators  325 

to  the  task  of  reconstruction?  Or  will  they  have  that  separation 
partial;  will  they  give  to  each  State  all  its  military  power;  will  they 
give  to  each  State  its  revenue  power;  will  they  still  preserve  the 
common  agent;  and  will  they  thus  carry  on  a  government  different 
from  that  which  now  exists,  yet  not  separating  the  States  so  entirely 
as  to  make  the  work  of  reconstruction  equal  to  a  new  creation;  not 
separating  them  so  as  to  render  it  utterly  impossible  to  administer 
any  functions  of  the  government  in  security  and  peace? 

A  dual  executive  was  waved  aside  as  sure  to  produce  perpetual 
war,  but  two  fraternal  confederacies  seemed  to  be  practicable : 
states  agreeing  with  each  other  in  their  internal  polity  might 
associate  together;  and  these  two  confederacies  might  have 
relations  to  each  other  so  close  as  to  give  them  united  power 
in  time  of  war  against  any  foreign  nation.  These  things  were 
possibilities;  these  things  it  devolved  on  the  majority  to  con 
sider  without  further  loss  of  time,  for  with  every  beat  of  the 
pendulum  of  the  clock  the  opportunity  was  passing  away. 

If  we  accept  your  philosophy,  replied  the  Puritan,  why  limit 
the  reconstruction  to  two  confederacies?  Why  not  four  or 
more  as  well?  And  if  there  is  to  be  a  reconstruction  at  all, 
why  not  retain  what  we  have  and  thank  God  for  it?  Would 
differences  be  less  tolerable  in  an  inconstant  confederacy? 
Would  fraternal  blood  be  less  likely  to  flow?  What  does  the 
stern  lesson  of  history  teach?  Here  stands  this  great  govern 
ment  established  by  the  labors  of  wise  and  good  men;  here 
stands  the  Union  formed  to  save  a  repetition  of  the  suffer 
ings  and  sacrifices  which  were  experienced  under  a  loose  con 
federacy — • 

a  pillar,  so  to  speak,  already  erected.  Do  we,  we  of  the  North, 
propose  to  pull  it  down?  Do  we  propose  undermining  the  founda 
tions  of  the  Constitution  or  disturbing  the  Union?  Not  at  all;  but 
the  proposition  comes  from  the  other  side.  They  are  making  war, 
and  modestly  ask  us  to  have  peace  by  submitting  to  what  they  ask.1 

'Speech  of  Lyman  Trumbull  in  reply  to  Jefferson  Davis,  January  10,  1861. 
— Cong,  Globe,  p.  312. 


326  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

The  cold  truth  follows  while  the  warm  and  eloquent  words  of 
the  Mississippi  Senator  are  yet  ringing  in  the  chamber — 
uttered  by  a  friend  of  the  President-elect,  by  Lyman  Trum- 
bull,  type  of  the  best  blood  and  brains  and  character  of  New 
England.  Duty  calls  to  the  maintenance  of  the  Union  in  its 
integrity;  wisdom,  to  the  support  of  the  Constitution  under 
which  a  more  perfect  liberty  and  a  more  perfect  security  have 
been  enjoyed  than  ever  before.  Why  propose  new  compro 
mises?  Why  not  be  content  with  the  Compromise  of  1850? 

There  was  a  constant  cry  about  the  inequality  of  States, 
when  no  inequality  existed.  But  it  was  proposed  to  extend 
the  local  laws  of  States  into  the  territories,  which  was  wholly 
impracticable.  Let  the  people  rally  in  support  of  the  Consti 
tution,  sustain  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  country,  and 
in  one  year  after  Mr.  Lincoln's  inauguration  the  misrepresen 
tations  would  be  exposed  through  an  upright  and  conscientious 
execution  of  the  laws,  and  peace  would  prevail  throughout  our 
borders. 

There  was  a  single  passage  in  the  remarks  of  Senator  Davis, 
who  was  soon  to  lay  down  that  title  and  become  President  of 
an  aggressive  confederacy,  which  marred  an  otherwise  consis 
tent  and  eloquent  speech, — a  single  note  of  the  threatening  of 
war, — which  invites  our  attention  as  showing  clearly  the  miscon 
ception  the  Southern  leaders  had  of  Northern  society  and  of 
the  conditions  prevailing  in  that  section,  the  misconception, 
indeed,  of  what  they  were  themselves  undertaking. 

The  South  might  be  invaded,  but 

an  army  with  banners  would  do  but  little  harm  in  marching  through 
a  country  of  plantations.  They  would  have  but  little  power  to  sub 
sist  themselves  in  a  sparsely  settled  region.  They  would  find  it  hard 
to  feed  the  army  with  which  they  invaded,  and  would  have  no  power 
to  bring  away  prisoners  and  fugitives.  How  stands  it  on  the  other 
side  ?  In  a  country  of  populous  cities,  of  manufacturing  towns, 
where  population  is  gathered  from  the  country  into  towns  and  vil 
lages,  the  torch  and  sword  can  do  their  work  with  dreadful  havoc,  and 
starving  millions  would  weep  at  the  stupidity  of  those  who  had  precipi 
tated  them  into  so  sad  a  policy. 


Jefferson  Davis's  Threats  327 

But  the  ensuing  four  years  presented  a  different  picture,  filled 
with  the  desolating  results  of  war,  alas !  but  without  any  of 
the  advantages  which  Mr.  Davis  hoped  to  reap. 

The  threat  to  let  loose  upon  the  cities  of  the  North  the 
dread  sisters,  fire,  famine  and  slaughter,  was  out  of  harmony 
with  the  general  tone  of  a  speech  otherwise  conciliatory  and 
instructive.  This  is  not  the  first  time  we  see  Mr.  Davis  in 
antagonistic  characters.  In  the  summer  of  1858  the  news 
papers  were  printing  and  commenting  favorably  on  the  follow 
ing  patriotic  sentiments  said  to  have  been  uttered  by  him 
July  4th  on  board  the  steamer  Joseph  Whitney,  bound  for 
Boston : 

And  this  great  country  will  remain  united.  Trifling  politicians  in 
the  South,  or  in  the  North,  or  in  the  West,  may  continue  to  talk 
otherwise,  but  it  will  be  of  no  avail.  They  are  like  the  mosquitoes 
around  the  ox;  they  annoy  but  they  cannot  wound,  and  never  kill. 
There  was  a  common  interest  which  ran  through  all  the  diversified 
occupations  and  various  products  of  these  sovereign  States;  there 
was  a  common  sentiment  of  nationality  which  beat  in  every  Ameri 
can  bosom;  there  were  common  memories  sweet  to  us  all;  and, 
though  clouds  have  occasionally  darkened  our  political  sky  the  good 
sense  and  the  good  feeling  of  the  people  had  thus  far  averted  any 
catastrophe  destructive  of  our  Constitution  and  the  Union. 

It  was  in  fraternity  and  an  elevation  of  principle  which  rose  su 
perior  to  sectional  or  individual  aggrandizement  that  the  foundations 
of  our  Union  were  laid;  and  if  we,  the  present  generation,  be  worthy 
of  our  ancestry,  we  shall  not  only  protect  those  foundations  from 
destruction  but  build  higher  and  wider  this  temple  of  liberty,  and 
inscribe  perpetuity  upon  its  tablet.5 

In  November  following  Mr.  Davis  was  credited  with  making 
an  incendiary  speech  at  Jackson,  Mississippi.  After  referring 
to  the  irrepressible-conflict  theory  of  Mr.  Seward,  he  advised 
the  Southern  people 

to  turn  their  old  muskets  into  Minie  rifles,  prepare  powder,  shot, 
shell,  ammunition  of  all  kinds  and  fortifications,  so  as  to  be  ready 
1  Cincinnati  Enquirer,  Aug.  3d,  which  contrasted  this  with  the  disunion  utter 
ances  of  Garrison. 


328  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

against  any  emergency.  The  South  should  invite  skilled  artisans  to 
locate  there  and  establish  manufactures  of  the  implements  of  war 
fare — this  was  the  part  of  prudent  prevention.1 

Events  were  hastening  with  startling  rapidity.  Mississippi 
adopted  an  ordinance  of  secession  on  the  Qth  of  January, 
Florida  on  the  loth,  Alabama  on  the  nth,  Georgia  on  the 
1 8th  and  Louisiana  on  the  26th,  and  delegates  from  these 
States  and  South  Carolina  assembled  at  Montgomery  on  the 
4th  of  February  to  form  a  confederacy.  Secession  won  in 
Alabama  and  Georgia  only  after  a  sharp  contest.  Senator 
Fitzpatrick  in  the  former  State  led  the  opposition,  which  was 
consolidated  under  a  plan  of  cooperation — Unionism  in  dis 
guise.  Men  were  heard  to  say  that  they  would  help  to  coerce 
South  Carolina;  that  they  gloried  in  the  Union,  and  that  they 
preferred  to  live  under  Lincoln  rather  than  Buchanan.  The 
parties  were  pretty  evenly  balanced,  but  secession  won  in 
the  convention,  and,  having  won,  with  whip  and  spur  drove  the 
other  into  the  disunion  movement.  It  was  thought  that  if 
Congress  had  acted  promptly  on  some  plan  of  conciliation  — 
that  of  Mr.  Crittenden's,  for  example, — Mr.  Stephens  and  Mr. 
Hill  would  have  succeeded  in  electing  a  majority  of  Unionists 
to  the  Georgia  convention  and  the  ordinance  of  secession 
would  have  been  defeated.2 

Fault  was  found  with  the  Republican  members  of  Congress 
because  they  witnessed  the  approach  of  the  storm  in  silent 
wonder  at  the  infatuation  of  men,  and  failed  promptly  to 
counteract  its  force.3  On  the  other  hand,  they  were  censured 
for  yielding  an  apparent  acquiescence  in  several  of  the  most 
objectionable  claims  put  forward  on  behalf  of  the  South, 
which  humiliated  the  North  without  appeasing  the  other  sec 
tion,4  and  for  not  earlier  taking  the  impregnable  position  that 

1  Cincinnati  Enquirer. 

8  The  Cradle  of  the  Confederacy,  pp.  484-490. 

3  See  special  message  of  the  President,  January  8  ;  speech  of  Jefferson  Davis, 
January  10  ;  Life  of  Buchanan,  vol.  ii.  ;  Democratic  newspapers  of  the  day,  and 
Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers. 

4  Twenty  Years  of  Congress^  vol.  i.,  p.  261. 


The  Montgomery  Convention  329 

the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  as  Mr.  Clay  held  in  1851, 
were  ample  for  preserving  the  Union.  Without  question  the 
situation  required  an  energetic  enforcement  of  the  laws, 
"rather  than  the  creation  of  new  guarantees  for  particular  in 
terests,  compromises  for  particular  difficulties,  or  concessions 
to  unreasonable  demands."  The  Union  men  of  the  South 
coincided  with  the  radical  Republicans  in  the  opinion  that  all 
attempts  to  dissolve  the  Union  with  the  hope  or  expectation 
of  reconstructing  a  new  one  with  an  increased  political  power 
secured  to  the  aristocratic  system  of  the  South  were  dangerous 
and  illusory.1  While  this  was  the  sentiment  generally  prevail 
ing  in  Republican  communities,  the  chosen  leaders  showed  a 
deference  to  the  feelings  of  others  who  were  anxious  that  con 
cessions  should  be  made  in  the  hope  that  war  might  be  avoided 
thereby.  In  this  spirit  they  wrought  in  Congress  in  entire  good 
faith,  avoiding  irritating  speeches  and  voting  for  propositions 
to  meet  the  demands  of  the  slaveholders. 

The  propositions  submitted  to  the  Committee  of  Thirty- 
three  covered  every  phase  of  the  sectional  controversy,  and 
were  remedial  from  the  various  standpoints  of  their  authors. 
They  have  only  a  curious  interest  to  the  student  of  American 
politics,  as  they  belong  in  the  domain  of  partisanism  rather  than 
of  statesmanship,  which  is  supposed  to  be  guided  by  the  light 
of  fundamental  principles.  But  the  committee  formulated  a 
plan  of  adjustment  from  which  the  objectionable  party  vagaries 
were  excluded,  and  which  was  perfectly  fair  to  the  complain 
ing  section.  The  committee's  second  proposition,  which  was 
in  the  form  of  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  went 
furthest.  It  provided  that  "no  amendment  shall  be  made  to 
the  Constitution  which  will  authorize  or  give  to  Congress  the 
power  to  abolish  or  interfere  within  any  State  with  the  domes 
tic  institutions  thereof,  including  that  of  persons  held  to  labor 

1  C.  C.  Washburn  of  Wisconsin  and  Mason  W.  Tappan  of  New  Hampshire 
dissented  from  the  conclusions  reached  by  a  majority  of  the  special  Committee  of 
Thirty-three,  and  submitted  a  minority  report  which  contained  the  views  expressed 
in  the  text.  Senator  Clark  introduced  resolutions  in  the  Senate  to  the  same  pur 
port,  which  were  adopted  by  that  body  and  afterwards  reconsidered. — Cong.  Globe, 
Jan.,  1861. 


33°  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

or  service  by  the  laws  of  said  State."  This  proposition 
passed  both  Houses  by  the  requisite  majorities  and  was  sub 
mitted  to  the  States.  The  Legislatures  of  Ohio  and  Maryland 
agreed  to  the  amendment  promptly,  but  before  other  States 
could  act  the  rapid  progress  of  revolution  rendered  all  action 
futile. 

The  committee  submitted  a  further  report  to  the  House  on 
the  I4th  of  January.  It  declared  that  good  faith  required  the 
observance  of  the  constitutional  provision  relating  to  the  ren 
dition  of  fugitives ;  to  which  end  it  requested  certain  States  to 
repeal  their  personal  liberty  acts.  It  pronounced  it  to  be  the 
duty  of  the  federal  government  to  enforce  the  federal  laws, 
to  protect  the  public  property,  and  to  preserve  the  Union.  It 
proposed  that  New  Mexico  be  admitted  with  its  slave  code  as 
adopted  by  the  territorial  Legislature ;  that  the  fugitive  slave 
law  be  amended  so  as  to  give  the  fugitive  a  jury  trial  in  the 
State  where  claimed,  with  the  aid  of  counsel  and  process  for 
procuring  evidence  at  the  cost  of  the  United  States,  and  if  he 
were  declared  free,  to  make  obligatory  his  return  to  the  place 
of  arrest  at  the  expense  of  the  national  Treasury;  and  that  the 
act  be  amended  so  as  to  give  to  federal  judges  of  districts,  in 
stead  of  Governors  of  States,  authority  to  act  on  requisitions, 
with  privilege  of  taking  exception  by  writ  of  error  to  the 
Circuit  Court.  This  was  to  meet  such  cases  as  that  in  which 
Governor  Dennison  of  Ohio  refused  to  issue  his  warrant  on  the 
requisition  of  the  Governor  of  Kentucky  for  the  arrest  of  a 
person  charged  with  the  violation  of  a  statute  of  the  latter 
State  when  the  act  was  not  recognized  as  a  criminal  offence  by 
the  laws  of  Ohio — when  it  was  regarded,  as  would  often  be  the 
case,  as  an  act  of  charity  and  humanity.  The  Senate  did  not 
act  on  these  latter  propositions,  the  joint  resolution  of  Mr, 
Crittenden  having  priority. 

1  The  original  of  this  was  offered  in  committee  by  Charles  Francis  Adams,  by 
request.  In  the  House,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Corwin,  the  phraseology  but  not  the 
substance  was  changed  to  read  as  in  the  text  above.  In  the  third  volume  of  his 
history,  Mr.  Rhodes  prints  a  letter  by  Mr.  Adams  explaining  his  part  in  placing 
before  the  committee  the  amendment  and  the  proposition  to  admit  New  Mexico 
as  a  State.  P.  267,  note. 


Proposed  Concessions  33 l 

The  action  of  the  House  on  the  report  of  the  Committee  of 
Thirty-three  showed  the  lengths  to  which  Republican  states 
men  would  go  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  South  and  to  com 
mit  their  own  constituencies.  A  majority  of  the  members  from 
Ohio,  including  Mr.  Sherman,  Mr.  Corwin,  Mr.  Delano  and 
Mr.  Stanton,  Mr.  Morrili  of  Vermont,  Mr.  Grow  and  Mr. 
Moorhead  of  Pennsylvania,  Mr.  Colfax  of  Indiana,  Mr. 
Howard  of  Michigan,  and  Mr.  Windom  of  Minnesota  sup 
ported  the  committee.  They  acted  under  a  sense  of  grave 
responsibility.  But  when  Mr.  Adams  of  Massachusetts  pro 
posed  the  (declaration  that  "peaceful  acquiescence  in  the  elec 
tion  of  the  chief  magistrate,  accomplished  in  accordance  with 
every  legal  and  constitutional  requirement,  is  the  paramount 
duty  of  every  good  citizen  of  the  United  States,"  several 
Southern  members  asked  to  be  excused  from  voting  upon  it. 
Mr.  Adams  showed  every  disposition  in  committee  to  promote 
any  practical  and  reasonable  compromise,  but  finally  he  sub 
mitted  to  the  House  a  minority  report  in  which  he  justified  his 
vote  against  the  report  of  the  committee.  He  said  that  close 
observation  had  led  him  to  the  conclusion  that  no  form  of  ad 
justment  would  be  satisfactory  to  the  recusant  States  which  did 
not  incorporate  into  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  the 
recognition  of  an  obligation  to  protect  and  extend  slavery. 
On  this  condition  and  on  this  alone  would  they  consent  to 
withdraw  their  opposition  to  the  recognition  of  the  constitu 
tional  election  of  the  chief  magistrate. 

The  plan  of  the  Committee  of  Thirty-three  differed  but 
little  from  propositions  agreed  on  at  a  meeting  of  the  Senators 
and  Representatives  from  the  fourteen  border  free  and  slave 
States.  One  of  these  further  provided  for  a  division  of  terri 
tory  into  free  and  slave  States  on  the  line  of  36°  30',  and  pro 
hibited  Congress  or  a  territorial  Legislature  from  abolishing  or 
interfering  with  slavery  south  of  that  line. 

The  Senate  committee  of  thirteen  met  for  the  first  time 
December  2ist,  the  day  after  the  convention  of  South  Carolina 
had  passed  the  ordinance  of  secession.  This  act,  although 
long  anticipated,  gave  additional  gravity  to  the  conference  of 


332  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

the  distinguished  men  charged  with  the  responsibility  of 
formulating  a  plan  of  pacification  acceptable  to  both  sections. 
On  the  22d,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Davis,  it  was  agreed  that  no 
proposition  should  be  reported  as  adopted,  unless  sustained  by 
each  of  the  two  classes  of  Senators  of  the  committee — Senators 
of  the  Republican  party  to  constitute  one  class,  and  Senators 
of  other  parties  to  constitute  the  other.  As  these  classes  nega 
tived  the  propositions  emanating  from  representative  members 
of  each,  the  committee  was  unable  to  agree  on  a  plan  of  ad 
justment  and  was  dissolved. 

What  the  Republican  Senators  were  willing  to  agree  to  was 
disclosed  in  resolutions  submitted  by  Mr.  Seward :  The  first 
was  the  proposition  reported  by  Mr.  Corwin  prohibiting  Con 
gress  from  abolishing  or  interfering  with  slavery  in  the  States. 
The  second  proposed  to  amend  the  fugitive  slave  act  of  1850 
so  as  to  secure  to  the  alleged  fugitive  a  jury  trial.  The  third 
and  last  requested  the  Legislatures  of  the  several  States  to  re 
view  all  of  their  legislation  affecting  the  right  of  persons 
recently  resident  in  other  States,  and  to  repeal  or  modify  all 
such  acts  as  contravened  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  or  any  laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof. 

The  Southern  Senators  except  Mr.  Toombs  voted  for  the 
first  resolution,  but  they  negatived  the  other  resolutions.  The 
extreme  Southern  demand  was  embraced  in  propositions  sub 
mitted  by  Messrs.  Toombs  and  Davis,  which  show  clearly  that 
the  purpose  of  the  leaders  who  had  precipitated  secession  was 
not  to  compromise  the  sectional  differences  at  this  stage.1 
None  knew  better  than  Davis  and  Toombs  that  the  Republi- 

1  When,  on  the  2d  of  January,  Mr.  Hunter  of  Virginia  was  speaking  in  expo 
sition  of  his  scheme  to  remodel  the  United  States  government  and  expressed  the 
desire  to  bring  about  a  permanent  adjustment  and  a  stable  government,  Mr. 
Baker  of  Oregon  asked  him  if,  in  case  Congress  should  agree  on  amendments  to 
the  Constitution  to  meet  the  Southern  views  to  be  submitted  for  the  approbation 
of  the  people,  he  would  throw  the  weight  of  Virginia  and  especially  the  weight  of 
his  own  individual  character  to  maintain  the  Constitution  and  laws  as  existing, 
until  the  people  of  the  States  should  decide  on  the  amendments,  he  declined  to 
commit  either  Virginia  or  himself  to  a  policy  of  suspension  until  the  people  could 
act. — Cong.  Globe,  Second  Session,  Thirty-sixth  Congress,  pp.  328-332. 


Proposed  Concessions  333 

can  members  of  Congress  could  not  accept  propositions  so  re 
pugnant  to  the  moral  sense  of  the  North  and  which  would 
require  the  utter  abandonment  of  their  political  principles. 

Mr.  Toombs  would  secure  to  the  people  of  the  United  States 
an  equal  right  to  settle  in  the  territories  with  slave  property, 
and  make  it  the  duty  of  the  general  government  to  protect 
the  same,  reserving  to  the  States  the  right  to  prohibit  or  estab 
lish  the  institution  of  enforced  servitude  within  their  limits. 
He  would  prohibit  Congress  from  passing  any  law  in  relation 
to  slavery  in  the  States  or  territories  or  elsewhere  without  the 
consent  of  a  majority  of  the  Senators  and  Representatives  of  the 
slaveholding  States.1  He  would  cause  to  be  surrendered  per 
sons  aiding  or  abetting  the  escape  of  slaves  the  same  as  other 
criminals;  he  would  require  Congress  to  pass  laws  to  punish 
persons  engaged  in  invasion  or  insurrection,  and  he  would 
deny  to  the  alleged  fugitive  the  benefit  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  or  trial  by  jury.  And  he  would  perpetuate  this  system 
by  prohibiting  any  alteration  of  it  or  of  the  clauses  of  the 
Constitution  relating  to  slavery  (excepting  the  African  slave 
trade)  without  the  consent  of  all  of  the  slave  States. 

Mr.  Davis  sought  by  amendment  of  the  Constitution  to  sub 
vert  the  constitutions  and  laws  of  the  free  States.  His  reso 
lution  is  entitled  to  a  careful  reading: 

Resolved,  That  it  shall  be  declared,  by  amendment  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  that  property  in  slaves,  recognized  as  such  by  the  local  laws  of 
any  of  the  States  of  the  Union,  shall  stand  on  the  same  footing  in 
all  constitutional  and  federal  relations  as  any  other  species  of  prop 
erty  so  recognized;  and  like  other  property  shall  not  be  subject  to 
be  divested  or  impaired  by  the  local  law  of  any  other  State  either 
in  escape  thereto  or  of  transit  or  sojourn  of  the  owner  therein  /  and  in 
no  case  whatever  shall  such  property  be  subject  to  be  divested 
or  impaired  by  any  legislative  act  of  the  United  States,  or  of  any  of 
the  territories  thereof.2 

'Amended  on  motion  of  Mr.  Hunter  so  as  to  add  :  "  And  also  a  majority  of 
the  Senators  and  Representatives  of  the  non-slaveholding  States." 

2  Cong.  Globe,  p.  190,  The  Richmond  Enquirer  demanded  the  repeal  of  all 
liberty  laws,  the  protection  of  slaveholders  against  interference  with  their  slaves 
while  sojourning  in  free  States,  and  protection  in  the  territories  by  Congress. 


334  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

It  would  be  challenging  the  intelligence  of  Mr.  Davis  to  sup 
pose  that  he  offered  the  above  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
in  the  expectation  that  it  would  be  adopted  by  the  States,  or 
that  any  free  State  would  alter  its  fundamental  law  to  permit 
the  introduction  of  African  slavery  in  the  manner  proposed. 

Before  Mr.  Powell  moved  the  appointment  of  the  Committee 
of  Thirteen,  Senator  Crittenden  introduced  a  joint  resolution 
which  immediately  challenged  the  attention  of  the  whole  coun 
try,  and  led  conservative  Union  people  everywhere,  especially 
in  the  border  States,  to  expect  that  peace  and  concord  would 
be  restored  by  its  adoption.  This  resolution  submitted  six 
articles  as  amendments  to  the  Constitution  :  The  first  restored 
the  Missouri  restriction  and  carried  with  it  the  obligation  to 
protect  slavery  south  of  the  line  of  36°  30' ;  the  second  declared 
that  Congress  should  have  no  power  to  abolish  slavery  in 
places  under  its  exclusive  jurisdiction  within  the  limits  of  slave 
States;  the  third  took  away  from  Congress  the  power  to  abol 
ish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  so  long  as  the  institu 
tion  should  exist  in  either  Maryland  or  Virginia,  or  without 
the  consent  of  the  inhabitants,  or  without  just  compensation 
first  made  to  the  owners  of  slaves;  and  also  the  power  to  pro 
hibit  officers  of  the  government  or  members  of  Congress  from 
bringing  into  the  District  their  slaves  and  holding  them  there. 
The  fourth  prohibited  any  interference  with  the  interstate  slave 
trade ;  the  fifth  provided  that  in  cases  where  the  recapture  of 
a  slave  was  prevented  by  violence  or  intimidation,  or  where  a 
slave  was  rescued  by  force,  the  claimant  should  be  paid  the 
value  of  such  slave  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States; 
the  sixth  provided  that  no  future  amendment  should  affect  the 
five  preceding  articles,  that  the  provision  in  the  Constitution 
guaranteeing  the  count  of  three-fifths  of  the  slaves  in  the  basis 
of  representation  should  never  be  changed ;  that  no  amend 
ment  should  be  made  to  impair  the  provision  for  the  recovery  of 
fugitives  from  service,  and  that  no  amendment  should  be  made 
permitting  Congress  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  slave  States.1 

1  Mr.  Crittenden  also  introduced  five  declaratory  resolutions    relating    to    the 
slavery  controversy  :  That  the  fugitive  slave  law  ought  not  to  be  modified  so  as 


Proposed  Concessions  335 

The  joint  resolution  failed  to  pass  the  ordeal  of  the  Com 
mittee  of  Thirteen,  as  its  several  articles  were  rejected  by  the 
votes  of  the  Republican  members.  Mr.  Davis  and  Mr.  Toombs 
voted  with  them  against  the  first  article,  which  proposed  to  re 
store  the  Missouri  Compromise  and  secure  the  protection  of 
slave  property  south  of  the  line  of  division.  After  the  com 
mittee  was  discharged  and  the  Crittenden  joint  resolution  was 
before  the  Senate,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Powell,1  the  first  article 
was  amended  so  as  to  make  the  obligation  to  protect  slavery 
extend  to  territory  "hereafter  to  be  acquired."  Whatever 
chance  there  might  have  been  to  secure  the  support  of  the 
North  for  Mr.  Crittenden's  plan  of  adjustment  was  thrown 
away  by  the  adoption  of  the  Powell  amendment,  which  invited 
the  despoilment  of  weaker  nations — the  absorption  of  Mexico, 
Nicaragua  and  Cuba  by  force  or  fraud  to  extend  the  area  of 
slavery.  But  even  this  enticing  prospect  failed  to  check  the 
disunionists  in  their  career  of  revolution. 

The  joint  resolution  was  further  amended  so  as  to  make  it 
mandatory  on  the  executive  of  a  State  to  surrender  a  person 
charged  with  an  offence  against  slavery  in  another  State ;  to 
punish  persons  abetting  insurrection,  and  suppressing  the  Afri 
can  slave  trade  forever.  Unexpectedly  to  the  author  of  the 
measure,  who  had  wished  to  modify  it  to  meet  objections,  it 
was  pressed  to  a  vote  on  the  2d  of  March.  Mr.  Crittenden 
moved  to  substitute  the  article  of  amendment  reported  from  the 
Peace  Congress.  Upon  the  invitation  of  Virginia,  fourteen  free 
and  seven  slave  States  sent  delegates  to  this  congress  charged 
with  the  duty  of  devising  some  plan  of  adjustment  within 
the  scope  of  the  Constitution  which  should  provide  guaran 
tees  for  the  future  protection  of  the  rights  of  the  minority 

to  impair  its  efficiency  ;  that  provision  should  be  made  for  the  punishment  of 
those  who  should  attempt  to  hinder  or  defeat  the  due  execution  of  the  law  ;  that 
the  law  ought  to  be  so  amended  as  to  make  the  fee  of  the  marshal  the  same  in 
cases  decided  by  him  whether  favorable  or  unfavorable  to  the  claimant  ;  that 
Congress  should  request  States  having  personal  liberty  laws  on  the  statute  books 
to  repeal  them  ;  and  that  the  laws  for  the  suppression  of  the  African  slave  trade 
ought  to  be  made  effectual. 
1  January  i6th. 


336  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

section.  The  delegates  were  men  of  distinction,  and  were 
undoubtedly  actuated  by  a  spirit  of  patriotism.  They  as 
sembled  in  Washington  on  the  4th  of  February  and  remained 
in  session  three  weeks.1  They  adopted  an  article  of  amend 
ment  to  the  Constitution  embracing  seven  propositions.  These 
resembled  those  introduced  by  Mr.  Crittenden,  the  differences 
being  more  conformable  to  Northern  sentiment. 

The  first  section  restored  the  Missouri  Compromise  line ;  the 
second  provided  that  no  territory  should  be  acquired  without 
the  concurrence  of  a  majority  of  all  of  the  Senators  from  slave- 
holding  States  and  a  majority  of  all  the  Senators  from  free 
States ;  the  third  declared  that  neither  the  Constitution  nor 
any  amendment  thereof  should  be  construed  to  give  Congress 
power  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  States,  or  to  prohibit  it 
in  the  District  of  Columbia  without  the  consent  of  Maryland 
and  without  the  consent  of  the  owners,  or  without  making  the 
non-consenting  owners  just  compensation,  or  to  prohibit  per 
sons  from  bringing  slaves  to  the  District,  retaining  and  taking 
them  away,  or  to  prohibit  slavery  in  places  under  the  exclusive 
jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  or  to  interfere  with  the  inter 
state  slave  trade,  or  to  place  any  higher  rate  of  taxation  on 
slaves  than  upon  land,  but  it  prohibited  the  slave  trade  within 
the  District;  the  fourth  provided  that  no  construction  of  the 
Constitution  should  prevent  any  of  the  States  by  appropriate 
legislation  from  aiding  in  the  arrest  and  delivery  of  escaping 
slaves ;  the  fifth  forever  prohibited  the  African  slave  trade ;  the 
sixth  provided  that  these  amendments  should  not  be  changed 
or  abolished  without  the  consent  of  all  of  the  States;  the 
seventh  provided  for  the  payment  from  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States  for  all  fugitive  slaves  whose  recapture  should  be 
prevented  by  violence. 

The  minutes  of  the  congress  show  that  of  the  Northern 
States  Ohio  and  Pennsylvania,  and  of  the  Southern  States 
Maryland,  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  voted  for  every  proposi 
tion.  After  the  proposed  amendment  was  submitted  to  Con 
gress  and  opportunity  for  an  interchange  of  views  had  been 

1  Ex-President  Tyler  was  president  of  the  congress. 


Proposed  Concessions  337 

afforded,  it  was  learned  that  this  agreement  between  the  dele 
gates  of  the  border  and  Northern  States  would  not  be  accept 
able  to  the  disunionists.  This  fact  explains  why  but  seven 
votes  were  recorded  in  the  Senate,  March  2d,  in  favor  of  Mr. 
Crittenden's  motion  to  substitute  the  measure  reported  by  the 
Peace  Congress  for  his  joint  resolution,  and  why  the  House 
failed  to  consider  it  at  all.  Jefferson  Davis  says  in  his  history 
of  the  war  that  the  Peace  Congress  "failed  to  achieve  anything 
that  would  cause  or  justify  a  reconsideration  by  the  seceded 
States  of  their  action  to  reclaim  the  grants  they  had  made  to 
the  general  government  and  to  maintain  for  themselves  a 
separate  and  independent  existence."  He  nowhere  explicitly 
says  that  they  would  have  accepted  the  Crittenden  proposi 
tion,1  returned  to  the  Union,  and  renounced  the  doctrine  that 
a  State  had  a  constitutional  right  to  secede.  We  know  well 
that  Mr.  Davis  would  not  have  renounced  his  theory  of  the 
Constitution.  He  had  for  many  years  advocated,  as  an  essen 
tial  attribute  of  State  sovereignty,  the  right  of  a  State  to 
secede  from  the  Union2 — the  right  of  peaceable  withdrawal 
from  an  association  that  had  become  intolerable,  sectional 
hostility  having  been  substituted  for  a  general  fraternity.  This 
theory  of  the  government  had  such  a  hold  on  him  that  he 
declared  that  if  he  had  thought  Mississippi  was  acting  without 
sufficient  provocation,  or  without  an  existing  necessity,  he 
should  still,  because  of  his  allegiance  to  the  State,  have  been 
bound  by  her  action.3  The  North,  dreading  more  the  anarchy 
resulting  from  unstable  governments  than  all  else,  could  not 
accept  the  secession  theory.  Nor  could  the  North  accept  the 
Crittenden  proposition,  imperfect  as  its  author  confessed  it  to 
be,  both  because  of  the  sacrifice  of  principle  it  required  and 
because  of  the  political  agitation  that  would  surely  follow  its 

1  Senators  Pugh  and  Douglas  said  in  the  Senate  that  Mr.   Davis  had  in  com 
mittee  proposed  to  accept  the  Crittenden  compromise  if  that  proposition  could  re 
ceive  the  support  of  the  Republicans.     See  Senate  Debates,  Cong.  Globe,  Second 
Sess.,  Thirty-sixth  Congress.     Mr.  Davis  in  his  work  recites  the  remark  of  Senator 
Douglas  merely  as  a  part  of  the  history  of  the  time. 

2  Speech  on  withdrawing  from  the  Senate. 
J  Ibid. 

VOL.  I. — 22. 


338  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

adoption.  On  being  put  upon  its  passage  in  the  Senate  it 
failed  by  a  vote  of  19  to  20. 

The  course  of  those  secessionists  who  still  lingered  in  the 
Senate  in  demanding  concessions,  while  refusing  to  vote  on  the 
Crittenden  joint  resolution,  was  disingenuous.  Directly  after 
it  failed  to  pass  they  telegraphed  home,  "We  cannot  get  any 
compromise."  The  active  agents  of  the  disunion  movement 
endeavored  by  misrepresenting  the  facts  to  use  the  non-suc 
cess  of  the  Crittenden  proposition  to  influence  the  border 
States  to  secede.1 

Meanwhile  there  was  great  activity  in  the  Northern  and 
border  States  in  the  promotion  of  a  sentiment  favorable  to 
concessions  to  the  South.  Petitions  signed  by  tens  of  thou 
sands'  were  sent  to  both  Houses  of  Congress,  and  public  meet 
ings  were  held  in  several  of  the  leading  cities, — Boston,  Albany, 
New  York,  Philadelphia  and  Cincinnati, —  which  were  ad 
dressed  principally  by  persons  identified  with  the  Democratic 
and  Conservative  Union  parties.  The  moderate  and  patriotic 
tone  which  characterized  a  meeting  held  at  the  Opera  House 
in  Cincinnati,  December  iQth,  is  in  striking  contrast  with  the 
wild  and  reckless  speeches  made  in  some  of  the  Eastern  cities. 
Mayor  Bishop,  an  American,  presided.  Henry  Stanbery,  the 
eminent  jurist,  who  was  a  citizen  of  Kentucky,  in  a  speech  of 
great  power,  controverted  the  doctrine  that  a  State  could  con 
stitutionally  secede  from  the  Union.  The  Hon.  William  S. 
Groesbeck  said:  "I  feel  that  it  would  be  small  business  in  a 
great  nation  like  ours  to  parley  with  the  wild  fanaticism  of 
the  unmanageable  States;  but  I  would  counsel  moderation 
and  kind  treatment." 

The  resolutions  will  be  found  to  be  a  more  faithful  reflection 
of  Northern  sentiment  than  most  that  appeared  in  public 
prints.  The  meeting  resolved : 

j.  That  we  earnestly  cherish  the  federal  Constitution,  the  in 
tegrity  of  the  Union,  and  the  peace  and  security  of  all  citizens. 

1  National  Intelligencer.     Also,  speech  of  Andrew  Johnson,  January  31,  1862. 
8  Mr.  Crittenden  said  he  thought  the  signatures  reached  a  quarter  of  a  million. 


Northern  Sentiment  for  Concession        339 

2.  That  we  hold  secession  by  a  State,  or  resistance  by  any  State 
to  the  federal  laws,  to  be  non-constitutional  and  revolutionary;  to 
be  met  with  firmness,  but  yet  in  a  spirit  of  forbearance  and  concili 
ation. 

3.  That  we  hold  all  State  laws  opposing  the  just  execution  of  the 
fugitive  slave  law  to  be  not  only  unconstitutional   and  void,  but 
mischievous  in  their  influence  on  the  feelings  of  the  people,  both 
North  and  South,  and  that  all  good  citizens  will  unite  to  effect  a  re 
peal  of  such  laws.     [The  fourth  resolution  related  to  the  clause  in 
the  Constitution  for  the  rendition  of  slaves,  which  made  the  laws  of 
1793  and  1850  necessary.] 

5.  That  we  most  earnestly  disapprove  and  condemn  the  uncandid 
and  unjust  denunciations  in  each  section  of  the  country  against  the 
people  of  the  other,  which  have  for  so  many  years  been  prevalent, 
and  which  originating  with  a  few,  have  at  length  fixed  the  prejudices 
and    embittered   the    feelings   and    misguided   the    judgments   of 
many;   and  we  believe  the  uncandid  discussion  of  the  slavery  ques 
tion  to  be  the  chief  cause  of  the  political  evils  of  the  day. 

6.  That  we,  in  common,  as  we  believe,  with  the  mass   of  the 
Northern  people,    hold  in   utter  detestation  and   abhorrence   any 
effort  to  produce  insubordination  and  insurrection  among  slaves, 
and  that  all  good  citizens  will  be  faithful  to  humanity  as  well  as  re 
ligion  in  opposing  such  attempts. 

7.  That  we  have  entire  confidence  in  the  united  and  persevering 
efforts  of  candid  men  to  counteract  the  evil  spirit  which  has  so  long 
been  spreading  in  the  land,  to  make  the  North  and  South  more  equit 
ably  acquainted  with  the  real  circumstances  of  each  other,  to  discoun 
tenance   the   bitterness   so  common  in  the  press,  to  maintain  the 
Constitution  and  the  laws,  and  to  maintain  a  spirit  of  candor  and  jus 
tice,  which  will  not  only  preserve  our  glorious  Union,  but  ultimately 
restore  to  the  hearts  of  all  the  people  the  Union  in  all  its  ancient 
strength.1 

The  seaboard  cities,  finding  trade  suspended,  debts  unpaid 
and  before  them  the  prospect  of  a  cessation  of  cotton  manu 
factures,  endeavored  to  check  secession  by  an  active  advocacy 

1  Cincinnati  papers,  Dec.  20.  Another  meeting  was  held  at  Smith  and  Nixon's 
Hall,  Dec.  31,  which  was  addressed  by  Senator  Pugh.  The  Crittenden  proposition 
was  endorsed. 


34°  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

of  compromise,  and  by  showing  a  willingness  to  throw  over 
board  any  inconvenient  principles  inherited  from  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  or  the  teachings  of  the  fathers  of  the 
Constitution.  The  people  of  Philadelphia  early  in  December, 
at  a  meeting  presided  over  by  the  mayor,  expressed  a  desire 
to  meet  the  demands  of  the  South.  They  deprecated  any 
criticisms  of  slavery  or  of  slaveholders  as  inconsistent  with  the 
spirit  of  brotherhood  and  kindness.  And  to  prove  to  the 
South  their  sincerity,  the  mayor  on  the  following  day  caused 
a  hall  to  be  closed  to  George  William  Curtis,  who  was  an 
nounced  to  lecture  on  the  Policy  of  Honesty.  The  quick 
ened  conscience  of  the  Philadelphian  suspected  that  political 
heresy  lurked  behind  this  subject  chosen  by  one  who  had 
poked  fun  at  the  Rev.  Cream  Cheese,  and  promptly  deprived 
his  fellow  citizens  of  the  enjoyment  of  a  pleasant  and  profita 
ble  evening.  Boston,  also,  displayed  a  readiness  to  suppress 
freedom  of  speech  and  to  repudiate  the  acts  of  Massachusetts. 

A  meeting  in  Pine  Street,  New  York,  presided  over  by 
Charles  O'Conor,  in  which  ex-Senator  Dickinson,  Wilson  G. 
Hunt,  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  William  B.  Astor,  John  J.  Cisco 
and  other  prominent  citizens  took  part,  resolved  "to  seek  by 
all  practicable  efforts  a  redress  of  the  wrongs  of  which  the 
Southern  States  justly  complain  and  to  maintain  their  equality 
under  the  Constitution,  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights 
and  privileges  it  confers" — one  of  which  was  declared  to  be  the 
right  to  carry  slavery  into  the  free  territories  and  have  it 
maintained  there.  As  this  involved  the  enactment  of  a  slave 
code,  which  the  Northern  States  had  repudiated  again  and 
again,  the  Pine  Street  meeting  was  undertaking  what  was  im 
practicable.  An  address  to  the  South  was  drawn  up  and 
signed,  which  ex-President  Fillmore  was  requested  to  carry  to 
the  seceding  States.1 

The  sentiments  of  the  Cincinnati  meeting  were  less  accep 
table  to  the  leaders  of  the  disunion  movement  than  those 
which  recognized  their  "wrongs  "  and  approved  of  a  peaceable 
separation.  "Compromise  or  peaceable  separation"  was 

1  Memoirs  of  John  A.  Dix,  vol.  i.,  p.  350. 


Northern  Sentiment  for  Concession        341 

proclaimed  by  the  Democratic  organ  of  Maine.  If  the  Re 
publicans  refused  to  yield  to  an  accommodation  of  the  national 
difficulties,  and  if  troops  should  be  raised  in  the  North  to 
march  against  the  people  of  the  South,  then,  the  Detroit  Free 
Press  declared,  "a  fire  in  the  rear  will  be  opened  upon  such 
troops  which  will  either  stop  their  march  altogether  or  wonder 
fully  accelerate  it."  The  Albany  Argus,  a  Democratic  paper 
of  wide  influence,  justified  the  course  of  the  extremists  and 
said  it  should  deem  a  resort  to  force  most  disastrous. 

At  a  Democratic  meeting  held  in  Albany,  January  3ist, 
after  six  States  had  withdrawn  from  the  Union,  Horatio  Sey 
mour  asked  whether  successful  coercion  by  the  North  would 
be  less  revolutionary  than  successful  secession  by  the  South. 
And  Mr.  James  S.  Thayer,  a  Whig,  after  declaring  in  favor  of 
a  settlement  on  the  basis  of  a  peaceable  separation,  added  that, 

if  a  revolution  of  force  is  to  begin,  it  shall  be  inaugurated  at  home. 
And  if  the  incoming  administration  shall  attempt  to  carry  out  the  line 
of  policy  that  has  been  foreshadowed,  we  announce  that  when  the 
hand  of  Black  Republicanism  turns  to  blood-red,  and  seeks  from 
the  fragment  of  the  Constitution  to  construct  a  scaffolding  for  coer 
cion — another  name  for  execution — we  will  reverse  the  order  of  the 
French  Revolution,  and  save  the  blood  of  the  people  by  making 
those  who  would  inaugurate  a  reign  of  terror  the  first  victims  of  a 
national  guillotine. 

Such  inflammatory  sentiments  were  received  with  enthusiastic 
applause. 

After  such  an  exhibition  of  subserviency  in  the  State  it  was 
unkind  in  the  mayor  of  the  great  metropolis  to  press  his  propo 
sition  for  it  to  secede  and  sever  the  "  odious  and  oppressive 
connection"  with  the  State.  The  resolutions  which  were 
adopted  were  in  keeping  with  the  sentiments  of  the  speakers. 
One  of  them  declared  that  civil  war  would  not  restore  the 
Union,  but  would  defeat  forever  its  reconstruction ;  another 
that  it  would  be  monstrous  to  refuse  the  concessions  demanded 
by  the  South. 


342  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

Can  we  wonder  that  the  Southern  people,  misled  by  such  ex 
hibitions  of  zeal  in  their  cause,  hastened  to  enter  upon  a  course 
which  promised  that  they  might  if  they  chose  return  to  the 
Union  with  political  power  made  secure,  perchance  largely 
augmented  l ;  or  which  might  lead  to  the  peaceable  establish 
ment  of  a  confederacy  based  on  a  system  free  from  all  com 
promises  ?  They  had  embraced  a  false  political  theory  which 
led  them  to  believe  that  at  any  time  they  could  peacefully 
withdraw  from  the  Union  without  the  consent  of  the  other 
members,  and  that  the  power  of  the  Constitution  would  suffice 
to  prevent  an  attempt  at  coercion.  In  fancied  security  they 
followed  the  rash  counsels  of  the  few  ardent  spirits  who  had 
imagined  the  creation  of  a  new  confederacy  with  power  to  con 
trol  the  manufacturing  interests  of  the  world  and  shape  the 
political  destiny  of  nations.  Holding  to  this  theory,  they  could 
not  understand  how  a  war  could  be  waged  against  seceded 
States.3 

The  Republicans  in  Congress  were  embarrassed  by  the  want 
of  agreement  among  Southern  men  as  to  the  nature  and  extent 
of  their  grievances.  Senator  Baker  of  Oregon,  in  a  speech  which 
attracted  general  attention  for  its  perfect  temper,  thorough  grasp 
of  political  facts,  wit  and  eloquence, — the  most  brilliant  maiden 
speech  perhaps  ever  delivered  in  the  Senate, — attempted  in  vain 
to  obtain  from  Southern  Senators  a  list  of  grievances,  a  dis 
tinct  avowal,  in  fact,  of  any  well-founded  wrong.3  Inequality 
of  States  in  their  relations  to  the  territories  had  been  alleged 
by  some,  by  Senator  Toombs  for  one,  and  denied  by  Alexan- 

1  "  In  the  minds  of  many  there  was  the  not  unreasonable  hope  that  the  secession 
of  six  Southern  States — certainly  soon  to  be  followed  by  that  of  others — would  so 
arouse  the  sober  thought  and  better  feeling  of  the  Northern  people  as  to  compel 
their  representatives  to  agree  to  a  convention  of  the  States,  and  that  such  guar 
antees  would  be  given  as  would  secure  to  the  South  the  domestic  tranquillity  and 
equality  in  the  Union  which  were  rights  assured  under  the  federal  compact." — 
Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government,  vol.  i.,  p.  227. 

2 Ibid.,  chap.  iv. 

3  Mr.  Baker's  remarks  were  in  reply  to  Senator  Benjamin,  who  had  made  the 
ablest  of  the  speeches  supporting  secession.  It  reminded  him  of  the  reply  of  Dr. 
Johnson,  who,  when  asked  his  critical  opinion  of  a  book  just  published  which  was 
making  a  great  sensation  in  London,  said  :  "  Sir,  the  fellow  who  has  written  that 


Efforts  for  Compromise  Fail  343 

der  H.  Stephens,  who  declared  that  the  personal  liberty  laws 
of  some  of  the  Northern  States  were  the  real  causes  of  com 
plaint.1  To  the  extent  triat  these  obstructed  a  just  execution 
of  the  fugitive  laws,  the  States  would  undoubtedly  have 
amended  them ;  and  to  end  all  controversy  about  the  terri 
tories  Mr.  Sherman  proposed  their  immediate  admission  as 
States.  Besides  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution  already 
referred  to  as  having  been  reported  by  the  Committee  of 
Thirty-three,  which  proposed  to  make  slavery  perpetual  in  the 
States  where  it  existed,  the  Republicans  were  willing  to  abide 
by  the  Dred  Scott  decision  and  the  enforcement  of  the  fugitive 
slave  law,8  and  in  organizing  the  territories  of  Colorado,  Da 
kota  and  Nevada  they  omitted  to  insert  any  clause  prohibit 
ing  slavery — thus  abandoning  the  principle  which  gave  rise  to 
their  party.  Not  one  of  the  great  leaders  of  the  party  ob 
jected  to  this.  These  facts  show  how  intent  they  were  on 
staying  secession  if  admissible  concessions  could  do  it.  The 
disposition  was  well  understood  by  the  Southern  leaders,  but 
they  were,  as  Mr.  Stephens  said,  disunionists/w  se.  They  did 
not  regard  a  restoration  of  former  relations  as  practicable  or 
desirable.3 

They  beheld  the  political  power  of  the  North  growing  with 
unexampled  rapidity,  and  they  believed  that  it  threatened  the 
early  destruction  of  their  social  order.  "Happy  would  it  have 
been,"  wrote  Jefferson  Davis  retrospectively,  "if  the  equal 
rights  of  the  people  of  all  the  States  to  the  enjoyment  of  terri 
tory  acquired  by  the  common  treasure  could  have  been  recog 
nized  at  the  proper  time '  There  would  have  been  no  secession 

has  done  very  well  what  nobody  ought  ever  to  do  at  all."  At  a  moment  of  great 
interest  in  his  argument,  the  chair  in  which  Senator  Mason  of  Virginia  sat  gave 
way  and  precipitated  the  occupant  to  the  floor.  Baker  pausing  said  :  ' '  The  inci 
dent  before  me,  Mr.  President,  is  not  the  only  case  where  a  fall  will  succeed 
dissolution." 

1  Life,   p.   376.     Mr.   Toombs  not   only  assigned  inequalities   of   States   as   a 
grievance,  but  opposition  to  the  fugitive  slave  law  and  refusal  to  surrender  persons 
accused  of  aiding  escaping  slaves  and  inciting  insurrection.     His  speech  arraign 
ing  the  North  was  the  most  powerful  delivered  during  the  debate. 

2  Personal  Recollections,  by  George  W.  Julian,  p.  180. 
J  Inaugural  address  of  Jefferson  Davis. 


344  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

and  no  war."  A  note  of  warning  was  given  in  1850  when 
California  was  admitted  to  the  Union  as  a  free  State,  and  the 
equilibrium  of  power  between  the  sections,  which  had  been 
maintained  until  then,  was  destroyed.  Jefferson  Davis  and 
nine  other  Senators  holding  radical  States  Rights  views  in  a 
written  protest  against  the  refusal  of  Congress  to  recognize  the 
right  of  the  slaveholding  States  to  a  common  enjoyment  of  all 
of  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  or  to  a  fair  division  of  it 
between  the  sections,  declared  the  policy  of  the  government 
to  be  "destructive  of  the  safety  and  liberties  of  the  South,  and 
must  lead,  if  persisted  in,  to  the  dissolution  of  that  confeder 
acy  in  which  the  slaveholding  States  had  never  sought  more 
than  equality  and  in  which  they  will  not  be  content  to  remain 
with  less."2  Ten  years  of  agitation  and  the  election  of  a 
Republican  President  brought  about  the  fulfilment  of  this 
prophecy. 

Must  we  live  [exclaimed  one  who  had  joined  in  the  disunion 
movement  early],  must  we  live,  by  choice  or  compulsion,  under  the 
rule  of  those  who  present  us  the  dire  alternative  of  an  "irrepressible 
conflict  "  with  the  Northern  people  in  defence  of  our  altars  and  our 
firesides,  or  the  manumission  of  our  slaves,  and  the  admission  of 
them  to  social  and  political  equality? 3 

You  will  not  regard  constitutional  obligations  [said  Mr.  Toombs, 
addressing  Northern  Senators].  I  have  demonstrated  that  the  party 
now  coming  into  power  has  declared  us  outlaws,  and  is  determined 
to  exclude  thousands  of  millions  of  our  property  from  the  common 
territories;  that  it  has  declared  us  under  the  ban  of  the  Union,  and 
out  of  the  protection  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States  everywhere. 
They  have  refused  to  protect  us  from  invasion  and  insurrection  by 
the  federal  power  and  the  Constitution  denies  to  us  in  the  Union 
the  right  either  to  raise  fleets  or  armies  for  our  defence. 
We  have  appealed  time  and  time  again,  for  these  constitutional 
rights.  You  have  refused  them.  We  appeal  again.  Restore  us 

1  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government,  vol.  i.,  p.  181. 

2  This  protest  was  dated  Aug.  18,  1850.     The  Senate  refused  to  enter  it  on  the 
journal. 

3  Senator  Clay  of  Alabama. 


Efforts  for  Compromise  Fail  345 

these  rights  as  we  had  them,  as  your  court  adjudged  them  to  be, 
just  as  our  people  have  said  they  are;  redress  these  flagrant  wrongs, 
and  it  will  restore  fraternity  and  peace  and  unity  to  all  of  us.  Re 
fuse  them,  and  what  then?  We  shall  ask  you  to  let  us  depart  in 
peace.  Refuse  that  and  you  present  us  war. 

The  Republicans  disclaimed  any  purpose  to  interfere  with 
the  internal  affairs  of  the  States;  or  to  evade  their  constitu 
tional  obligations.  But  they  thought  freedom  should  be  con 
sidered  as  well  as  slavery.  The  power  of  the  government  had 
been  used  by  administration  after  administration  to  hedge 
about  the  exceptional  institution  with  safeguards.  The  whole 
political  power  had  been,  except  for  brief  intervals,  in  the 
hands  of  those  whose  chief  care  was  to  extend  and  strengthen 
African  slavery.  Diplomacy  and  the  Treasury  had  been  em 
ployed  to  acquire  new  territory  for  that  purpose,  and  when 
these  fell  short  of  the  desires  of  the  Southern  politicians,  the 
army  and  navy  were  used  to  despoil  a  sister  republic.  South 
Carolina,  Louisiana  and  some  other  States  had  laws  imprison 
ing  free  colored  men  employed  in  interstate  commerce.  Ohio 
and  Massachusetts  remonstrated,  and  when  the  latter  State,  in 
1844,  sent  Samuel  Hoar  to  Charleston  instructed  to  make  up  a 
record  in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  of  such  a  case  affect 
ing  one  or  two  of  her  citizens,  and,  should  the  decision  be  ad 
verse,  to  take  it  on  error  to  the  United  States  Supreme  Court 
to  test  the  constitutionality  of  the  law,  South  Carolina  forbade 
him  to  make  the  case,  and  expelled  him  forcibly  from  the 
State.1  There  was  no  redress :  Ohio  and  Massachusetts  were 
powerless  to  protect  their  citizens  from  unjust  imprisonment. 
Public  opinion  in  the  South  sustained  the  States  that  had  in 
vaded  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  citizens  of  other  States. 
The  growth  of  anti-slavery  sentiment  in  the  North  was  due  to 
a  purpose  to  check  the  extension  of  a  dangerous  power — to 
confine  it  within  the  boundaries  of  States  where  it  was  consti 
tutionally  established.  That  purpose  did  not  go  beyond  this 

1  Atlantic  Monthly,  March,  1892.  Why  the  Men  of'6i  Fought  for  the  Union,  by 
Gen.  J.  D.  Cox. 


346  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

limit.  Therefore  when  the  cotton  States  chose  to  secede 
rather  than  to  recognize  the  election  of  a  man  to  the  presi 
dency  who  represented  the  predominant  sentiment  of  the 
North,  what  could,  what  ought  the  majority  to  do  to  prevent 
the  dismemberment  of  the  Union?  Surrender  the  constitu 
tional  right  of  election?  Yield  to  a  menace  and  thus  destroy 
the  stability  of  the  Union?  Abandon  the  doctrine  of  nation 
ality  and  substitute  for  it  the  theory  of  the  paramount  sover 
eignty  of  the  States  and  the  right  of  secession  at  will? 

When  threats  of  secession  first  began  to  be  heard,  the  wish 
was  general,  as  we  have  seen,  that  it  might  be  prevented  by 
compromise.  Where  the  panic  was  greatest,  in  the  commercial 
centres,  principle  was  prostrated  before  the  demands  of  those 
who  threatened  the  destruction  of  the  Union.  Should  the 
North  reject  the  Crittenden  compromise,  wrote  Horatio  Sey 
mour,  "then  the  entire  Middle  States  would  be  amply  justi 
fied,  before  the  world  and  posterity,  in  casting  their  lot  with 
their  more  Southern  brethren."  J  Mr.  Crittenden  himself, 
though  disappointed  at  the  failure  of  his  proposition,  did  not 
endorse  Mr.  Seymour's  opinion.  He  stood  by  the  Union 
cause.  He  refused  to  approve  of  the  doctrine  of  secession. 
The  representatives  of  the  North  in  Congress  objected  to  the 
Crittenden  compromise  because  it  took  away  from  Congress 
and  from  the  people  of  any  territory  south  of  36°  30'  all  power 
over  the  subject  of  slavery  2 ;  because,  with  the  Powell  amend 
ment,  it  invited  the  seizure  of  the  territory  of  other  nations. 

"Entertain  no  proposition  for  a  compromise  in  regard  to  the 
extension  of  slavery,"  said  Mr.  Lincoln  in  a  letter  to  a  mem 
ber  of  Congress.  "The  instant  you  do,  they  have  us  under 
again :  all  our  labor  is  lost,  and  sooner  or  later  must  be  done 
over.  The  tug  has  to  come,  and  better  now  than  later."  To 
this  pass  had  our  sectional  differences  come  at  last.  Each  side 
recognized  it,  and  prepared  for  the  contest.  The  South  had 

'Letter,  January  18,  1861.     Life  of  Crittenden,  vol.  i.,  p.  254. 

2  See  remarks  of  John  Sherman,  Cong.  Globe,  Jan.,  1861. 

3  Letter  addressed  to  William  Kellogg.     Nicolay  and  Hay,  Life  of  Lincoln,  vol. 
iii.,  p.  259. 


Organization  of  the  Confederacy  347 

accepted  Mr.  Calhoun's  argument  of  February  26,  1833,  as  a 
logical  and  just  interpretation  of  the  Constitution  touching  the 
right  of  a  State  to  secede  from  the  Union  peaceably.1  They 
believed  in  it  in  all  sincerity,  and  in  their  right  to  determine 
the  question  for  themselves.  This  theory  made  the  citizens  of 
the  States  entirely  dependent  for  the  protection  of  their  civil 
rights  and  franchises  on  the  several  State  authorities.2  Hence 
they  went  with  their  States,  and  discovered  no  trace  of  treason 
in  it.  The  Governor  of  South  Carolina  believed  that  if  this 
movement  should  succeed  in  engrafting  the  fundamental  right 
of  a  separate  and  independent  State  to  withdraw  from  any 
confederacy  that  might  be  formed,  whenever  her  people,  in 
sovereign  convention  assembled,  should  so  decide,  another  ad 
vance  in  the  science  of  government  would  be  made,  and  an 
other  guarantee  to  the  great  principle  of  civil  liberty  added. 
What  a  radical  departure  was  this  from  the  theory  held  by 
Washington  and  his  associates,  who  qualified  the  right  of  a 
people  to  alter  their  constitution  by  the  declaration  that  "the 
Constitution  which  at  any  time  exists,  till  changed  by  an  ex 
plicit  and  authentic  act  of  the  whole  people,  is  sacredly 
obligatory  upon  all."  3 

Reaction  followed  the  state  of  panic  in  the  North.  Time 
for  reflection  led  to  the  judgment  that  the  road  to  safety  lay 
in  the  recognition  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  Constitution  for  the 
emergency.*  If  instead  of  bringing  forward  compromises,  if 
instead  of  asking  for  guarantees,  the  government  had  been 
called  on  to  do  its  duty,  said  a  Senator,  a  very  different  state 
of  things  would  have  existed  in  the  country.6 

The  Southern  leaders  moved  swiftly  to  the  consummation 
of  their  purpose  to  inaugurate  a  new  confederacy.  Its  organi 
zation  in  their  minds  was  equivalent  to  its  establishment.  The 

1  Stephens's  Constitutional  View  of  the  Late  War  between  the  States,  vol.  i.,  p. 
495.  South  Carolina  "  seceded  from  that  Union  to  which  in  the  language  of  Mr. 
Jefferson,  as  well  as  General  Washington,  she  had  acceded  as  a  sovereign  State." 

2 Ibid.,  p.  494. 

"Washington's  Farewell  Address. 

4  Petitions  presented  by  Senator  Sumner,  Cong.  Globe,  2d  Sess.,  Thirty-sixth 
Congress.  5  See  Cong.  Globe,  remarks  of  Judge  Trumbull. 


348  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

delegates  of  the  seceding  States  met  at  Montgomery  on  the 
4th  of  February ;  on  the  8th  they  adopted  a  provisional  con 
stitution  modelled  after  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  l 
with  slight  but  important  changes,  and  on  the  Qth  they  elected 
Jefferson  Davis  President  and  Alexander  H.  Stephens  Vice- 
President  of  the  new  government.  Two  clauses  in  this  consti 
tution  relating  to  the  foreign  slave  trade  explain  in  a  measure 
the  haste  displayed  in  the  organization  of  the  provisional  gov 
ernment,  and  clearly  show  that  the  plan  of  the  leaders  was  not 
to  compel  the  representatives  of  the  Northern  States  to  agree 
to  a  convention  of  the  States  in  which  the  South  would  secure 
new  guarantees  and  equality  in  the  Union,2  but  to  bring  about 
the  final  separation  of  all  of  the  slaveholding  States  and  their 
association  in  a  distinct  confederacy.  Let  us  read  these  clauses 
in  the  light  of  the  debates  in  the  federal  Congress  in  Decem 
ber  and  January : 

1.  The  importation  of  negroes  of  the  African  race  from  any  for 
eign  country  other  than  the  slaveholding  States  or  territories  of  the 
United  States  of  America  is  hereby  forbidden;  and  Congress  is  re 
quired  to  pass  such  laws  as  shall  effectually  prevent  the  same. 

2.  Congress  shall  also  have  the  power  to  prohibit  the  introduction 
of  slaves  from  any  State  not  a  member  of,  or  territory  not  belonging 
to,  this  confederacy. 

The  leaders  had  expected  Maryland  and  Virginia  promptly 
to  unite  in  the  action  of  the  extreme  South,  but  to  their 
amazement  there  was  hesitation  and  doubt.  Then  threats 
were  employed  to  quicken  their  movements.  "I  understand," 

1 A  permanent  constitution  was  formed  in  March  and  submitted  to,  and  ratified 
by  the  people.  The  confederate  Cabinet  consisted  of  Robert  Toombs  of 
Georgia,  Secretary  of  State  ;  C.  G.  Memminger  of  South  Carolina,  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  ;  S.  R.  Mallory  of  Florida,  Secretary  of  the  Navy  ;  L.  P.  Walker 
of  Alabama,  Secretary  of  War  ;  J.  P.  Benjamin  of  Louisiana,  Attorney-General ; 
and  J.  H.  Reagan,  of  Texas,  Postmaster-General. 

2  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government,  chap,  iv.,  in  which  Mr.  Davis 
says  that  many  hoped  the  secession  of  six  States  would  arouse  the  Northern  peo 
ple  to  agree  to  a  convention  of  the  States.  This  hope  was  artfully  held  out  to 
Union  men  in  the  Gulf  States  to  induce  them  to  agree  to  secession.  The  leaders 
were  working  with  a  different  end  in  view. 


Organization  of  the  Confederacy  349 

said  Senator  Iverson,  "one  of  the  motives  which  influence  the 
tardy  action  of  these  two  States.  They  are  afraid  of  the  open 
ing  of  the  African  slave  trade,  and  the  cheapening  of  negroes." 
And  they  were  warned  that  if  they  failed  to  act  the  constitu 
tion  of  the  new  confederacy  might  strike  at  their  peculiar  in 
terest.1  By  prohibiting  the  introduction  of  slaves  from  States 
outside  of  the  Confederacy,  it  was  believed  those  States  en 
gaged  in  breeding  slaves  for  the  market  would  be  compelled  to 
withdraw  from  the  old  Union,  where  if  they  remained  emanci 
pation  would  result  from  their  own  act.2  The  two  clauses 
cited,  while  quieting  the  fears  of  the  border  States  as  to  the 
African  slave  trade,  conveyed  a  warning  that  if  they  failed  to 
unite  their  fortunes  with  the  Gulf  States  they  might  look  to  be 
punished  by  the  confederate  Congress. 

No  less  interest  attaches  to  one  of  the  earliest  statutes  en 
acted  by  the  confederate  Congress,  which  was  rushed  through 
to  placate  Tennessee  and  to  woo  the  great  Northwest  before 
Mr.  Lincoln  could  be  inaugurated.  This  act  insured  the  peace 
ful  and  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  River  "to  the  citi 
zens  of  any  of  the  States  upon  its  borders,  or  upon  the  borders 
of  its  navigable  tributaries. "  It  had  been  thought  possible 
for  many  years  to  effect  a  union  of  political  interests  between 
the  South  and  the  Northwest,  and  thus  forever  to  isolate  the 
hated  East,  a  delusion  that  was  cherished  until  war  fixed  the 
destiny  of  the  great  Republic.  When  disunion  had  been  de 
creed  before  the  presidential  election  in  1860,  its  promoters 
penetrated  the  Northwestern  States  and  endeavored  to  create 
a  sentiment  among  business  men  favorable  to  the  establish 
ment  of  a  confederacy  composed  of  these  States  and  the  South. 
The  basis  was  to  be  free  trade  and  the  Mississippi  was  to  be  the 
great  artery  for  commerce.4  The  authors  of  this  scheme  little 
understood  the  character  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  extensive 

1  Speech  of  Dec.  n,  1860.      Cong.  Globe. 

2  Message  of  Governor  Gist  to  the  Legislature  of  South  Carolina. 
8  Statutes-at-large,  Provisional  Govt,  C.  S.  A.,  pp.  36-38. 

4  Cincinnati  Gazette  early  in  1860.     The  authority  justifying  the  Gazette's  ex 
posure  was  unimpeachable. 


35°  A  Political  History  of  Slavery 

region  at  this  time,  or  the  social  influences  which  directed 
their  energies  and  moulded  their  institutions.  If  broader  than 
the  kin  they  had  left  behind  in  the  Middle  States  and  New 
England  and  in  Europe,  they  were  no  less  attached  to  the 
Union  and  the  principles  of  freedom,  and  even  more  deter 
mined  that  only  one  government  should  be  spread  over 
America. 

It  would  seem  that  Jefferson  Davis  deemed  it  possible  that 
these  and  perhaps  other  of  the  Northern  States  might  seek  to 
unite  their  fortunes  with  the  seceded  States  under  the  confed 
erate  government,  when  the  advantages  it  offered  over  the  old 
were  fully  understood.1  If  these  advantages  should  fail  to 
prove  sufficient,  perhaps  they  would  apply  for  admission  after 
their  trade  had  been  destroyed,  their  laborers  reduced  to  a 
state  of  starvation  and  the  torch  of  the  incendiary  lighted  in 
the  streets  of  the  great  cities  !  Meanwhile  the  Confederacy, 
he  declared,  had  been  formed  without  an  act  of  revolution. 
States  had  withdrawn  peacefully  from  one  alliance  and  formed 
another — had  created  a  new  agent  through  whom  to  commu 
nicate  with  foreign  nations  —  without  disturbing  the  internal 
policies  of  the  States,  or  checking  the  production  of  the  staples 
which  constituted  their  source  of  wealth  and  strength,  and  in 
which  the  commercial  world  had  an  interest  scarcely  less  than 
theirs.3  This  was  a  practical  illustration  of  the  American  idea 
that  governments  rest  on  the  consent  of  the  governed.  Pur 
suing  their  well-defined  policy  the  confederate  government 
appointed  commissioners  to  treat  with  the  United  States  gov 
ernment  for  a  peaceful  adjustment  of  all  questions  relating  to 
property  and  future  intercourse.  The  apprehension  that  he 
would  have  to  deal  with  these  commissioners  made  Mr.  Bu 
chanan's  last  days  in  office  perhaps  the  unhappiest  of  his  life. 


1  Inaugural  Address  of  Jefferson  Davis,  Feb.  18,  1861. 
*Ibid. 

or 


^SE  UBf?3£ 

or  •, 

END   OF  VOLUME    I 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


AUG  1  3  1967  1  a 

*xc.C'D  LD 

p- 

DEC  6  -'65  -4PM 

MiG    7-^-- 

L.O  'VN 

JAN     7  1968  4  9 

»ta£7  fli.ft 

''•'S'C-'u  uu 

^^  ^    1961  &u 

T    i-         ,  ,  .  r_  ,                .   l  _, 

DEC  13  '85  -lp 

iof  *io^)/  -u:  AW 

n 

y:rdw2^6&»!jfeo 

pn^feErn 

MAY12G7-12A 

/i 

JT  fe^c;  w> 

LD  21A-60m-3,'65 
(F2336slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


rt. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


